Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

    Incidently NBA Draft.net as of yesterday's update
    still has Maurice Ager going 17 to Indiana

    NBA Draft Preview: Shooting Guards

    By Aran Smith
    5/31/06

    Draft Buzz

    This year's shooting guard class lacks a surefire superstar but has a number of solid options with Brandon Roy at the top. Other options include one of the top shooters anywhere in JJ Redick, plus versatile guards Ronnie Brewer, Mardy Collins and Rudy Fernandez who all have the ability to play some point guard, as well as standout athletes such as Maurice Ager and Richard Roby.

    Here's a look at the top shooting guards available for this year's draft:


    1.) Brandon Roy 6-5 195 SG Washington Sr. -- Roy doesn't blow you away with any aspect of his game, but he's as NBA ready as any player in this draft and the most complete all around shooting guard available. He has a shot to go in the top 5 picks and should be long gone when his hometown Seattle Supersonics select at 10. Roy is a cerebral player with a great understanding of the game, and has shown the versatility to play point guard in college (should be able to fill in some in the league) and excels in important situations.

    2.) Maurice Ager 6-4 202 SG Mich. St. Sr. -- Ager could end up the top shooting guard in the draft. He raises his level of play in big games and has a great package of skills to go with tremendous speed and athleticism. Teams have been impressed with his character, he's a guy that will give solid effort and should find a place just outside the lottery.

    3.) JJ Redick 6-4 190 SG Duke Sr. -- Look for Redick to be the second shooting guard off the board. He's the ultimate specialty player in this year's draft. A lot of his success will depend on the team that drafts him and how they use him. Although his overall game showed a lot of development, on the next level his bread and butter will be knocking down open jump shots. There are some questions about his size and ability to defend and create shots for himself. Some scouts feel a lot of his success is due to Duke's system and that he isn't much different from former Duke standout Trajon Langdon, who is having an excellent career in Russia.

    4.) Ronnie Brewer 6-7 217 SG Arkansas Jr. -- Has one of the ugliest jumpers, which doesn't bode well for a "shooting" guard, however he does a lot of things well. First he has NBA genes, his Dad was a first round pick and he's been around basketball his entire life. Next he has an NBA body with excellent strength and quickness. He should be an excellent defender. His ball handling and passing skills are also intriguing. Brewer has a shot to go late lotto, and should find a spot in the late teens if he slips.

    5.) Mardy Collins 6-6 205 PG/SG Temple Sr. -- Collins could also get some looks in the late lottery area but based on early workouts it appears he's likely to slip to the mid-to-late first round area. Collins is similar to Brewer in his ability to handle and pass. He has a better jump shot than Brewer, but lacks Brewer's strength and athleticism. Both players are excellent defenders.

    6.) Richard Roby 6-6 190 SG Colorado So. -- Roby has as much potential as any shooting guard in this year's class. But with just 2 years of college, he's still raw and lacks the maturity level of some of the players above him. His inconsistency leaves some major question marks. For a player with immense physical gifts he has a reputation of coasting at times, will he have the desire to continue to work hard on his game?

    7.) Rudy Fernandez 6-6 172 PG/SG Spain 1985 -- Fernandez lacks tremendous potential, but he's had a great end of the year playing in Spain and has a precocious feel for the game. He lacks great strength, but has solid toughness and should be able to add some weight. He's a high effort, high intangibles type of player.

    8.) Mike Gansey 6-4 205 SG W. Virginia Sr. -- A very cerebral player, has the ability to make those around him better and contributes in a variety of ways. His outside shooting has developed to the point where he is arguably one of the top half dozen shooters on the college game. One of those players that has the will and desire to outwork and outperform superior athletes. Gansey has a legit shot at the end of the first round.

    9.) Denham Brown 6-5 220 SG UConn Sr. -- Never broke out into the star that some expected he would, but had a solid career at UConn. He has thrived playing on the Canadian National team. At UConn, Brown had the most success when he had the SG position all to himself. He should do well in the right situation as he shows strong all around skills and athletic ability. Look for Brown to find a spot in the early to mid second round.

    10.) Arron Afflalo 6-5 210 SG UCLA So. -- Afflalo's stock took a major hit with his disappearance in the national title game where he failed to have an impact. His versatility, defense and shooting ability make him an intriguing prospect, but the lasting impression of him was his ineffectiveness in the Final Four. Add to that Afflalo is closer to 6-4 than 6-5 and he becomes a long shot for the first round. He's an excellent prospect, but his stock dictates that he should return to UCLA for his Junior year.

    Others:

    Cameron Bennerman 6-4 205 SG NC State Sr. | Jahsha Bluntt 6-5 210 SG Delaware St. Jr. | Shannon Brown 6-3 200 SG Mich St. Jr. | Taquan Dean 6-2 175 PG/SG Louisville Sr. | Guillermo Diaz 6-2 178 PG/SG Miami Jr. | | Vincent Grier 6-5 207 SG Minnesota Sr. | Bobby Jones 6-6 210 SG/SF Washington Sr. | Ben Jacobson 6-3 205 SG Northern Iowa Sr. | Viktor Keirou 6-6 215 SG Russia 1984 | Chris McCray 6-4 190 SG Maryland Sr. | Dwayne Mitchell 6-5 211 SG La Lafayette Sr. | Jonathon Modica 6-4 212 SG Arkansas Sr. | JR Pinnock 6-5 207 SG G. Washington Jr. | Allan Ray 6-2 195 SG Villanova Sr. | Blake Schilb 6-7 220 SG Loyola-Chicago Jr. | Thabo Sefolosha 6-6 213 SG Switzerland 1984 | Renaldas Seibutis 6-6 180 SG Lith. 1985 | Trent Strickland 6-4 216 SG Wake Forest Sr. | Costas Vasiliadis 6-6 200 SG Greece 1984 | James White 6-7 190 SG Cincinnati Sr. |


    Chicago Promise to Douby

    Quincy Douby

    Two weeks ago NBADraft.net reported that Quincy Douby likely had a first round promise from a Midwest team. According to contacts, the rumored Midwest team with a promise to Douby is the Chicago Bulls. Chicago coach Scott Skiles has the same agent as Douby and the Bulls appear intent upon adding Douby to their backcourt of Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon.

    After winning the second pick in the draft lottery, the Bulls are assured of nabbing one of the top bigmen in the draft. With LaMarcus Aldridge likely to go first overall, the Bulls will select between Andrea Bargnani and Tyrus Thomas, allowing them to go small with their second pick.

    Douby is similar to Gordon in that he is more of a scoring small guard. Should the Bulls end up making a blockbuster deal including Gordon for Kevin Garnett, Douby would be able to give the team a similar type of player.


    Toronto Likely to Trade Down

    Just a week after winning the draft lottery, sources indicate that Toronto general manager Brian Colangelo is looking to move the top overall selection to a team in the 5-10 range. Two players that the Raptors will target in that area are UConn PG Marcus Williams and Washington SG Brandon Roy.

    With the team's strength in the front court with Chris Bosh and Charlie Villanueva, a bigman such as Lamarcus Aldridge or Italian Andrea Bargnani make less sense. Also factoring into the equation is the fact that this is not a great draft to have the top overall selection, so a team such as Toronto could add a talented piece (veteran player) through trade and pick up a player in the mid lotto area who could end up just as good as the top pick in the long run.

    With a brand new (GM) job in Toronto, Colangelo has the flexibility to make any number of moves, and it looks likely that they will be the first team since the Boston Celtics traded the top overall selection to the Golden State Warriors in 1980.

    Lamarcus Aldridge appears to be the strongest candidate to go first for a team that moves into that position.

    NBA Draft. Net

    Why Not Us ?


  • #2
    Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

    Jax + Tins + Our first + 2nd for 1st Overall (Gay, Roy... such such) and their 2nd rounder (just like a first rounder could be used on a PG)?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

      Originally posted by wooolus
      Jax + Tins + Our first + 2nd for 1st Overall (Gay, Roy... such such) and their 2nd rounder (just like a first rounder could be used on a PG)?
      Besides the obvious "they wouldn't do that," you can't trade both picks in the same year.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

        Originally posted by Anthem
        . . . you can't trade both picks in the same year.
        Where did you read that? I'm pretty sure you can in this case.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

          I think the only rule about trading draft picks is that you cannot trade your 1st rounder away in consecutive years.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

            Originally posted by pacertom
            I think the only rule about trading draft picks is that you cannot trade your 1st rounder away in consecutive years.
            That's what I thought.

            However there is one way we could get a teams 1st rounder in consecutive years. Say we trade Jax for the player taken 15th in this years draft plus their 1st rounder next year.

            This way we would actually be trading Jax for two consecutive 1st round draft picks but since this years pick was already used it wouldn't be looked at as consecutive picks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

              It doesnt matter,we could draft the next Michael Redd,and Rick would rather sign an aging FA SG,and start him over whomever we drafted.
              LoneGranger33 said
              Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NBA Draft preview- Shooting Guards [NBA Draft.Net]

                I would draft Roy.....since he won't be available ( even if we trade up ), my next choice would be Brewer ( since we probably won't be able to trade up ) then I would wait til the 2nd round to draft Bobby Jones ( as a SG perimeter defending roleplayer ).

                If we had to draft a SG...I would want one that could ( at least ) adequately defend the perimeter.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment

                Working...
                X