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 Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

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

  • #31
    Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

    Originally posted by JayRedd
    Maybe your Reggie/JJ argument is convenient, but we all know that JJ is not getting to Miller's level, so it is moot.
    When Miller was drafted he wasn't expected to get to Miller's level either.

    The fact is, nobody knows for sure. The kid has talent its a matter of how much heart & desire he has. He made improvements in his game from his junior to his senior year, so he can get better.

    I'd be willing to take the chance.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

      I could see Redick becoming another Michael Redd. Not a great overall player, not a good defender, but an outstanding shooter and scorer capable of scoring 20 a game.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

        Originally posted by Robertmto
        JJ will be a decent shooter, but he will be torched on the defensive end of the floor.

        Again there are many two guards in the NBA who can't defend, won't defend and have know desire to defend.With the exception of Granger ,looking at the Pacers perimeter defense last year JJ would fit right in.


        If Reddick can score I guarantee he'll find a home with some team and if he's every bit as dominant a shooter as he was in college he'll be a starter for some team reguardless of his inability to defend.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

          Originally posted by Steve McQueen
          I could see Redick becoming another Michael Redd. Not a great overall player, not a good defender, but an outstanding shooter and scorer capable of scoring 20 a game.
          Umm....Michael Redd was known as a defensive player in the Big Ten. It was his defense that got him drafted. His amazing shooting ability was an upside. He ranks seventh all time in steals at Ohio State an dhe only played three years. He led the Buckeyes in steals every year he played.
          STARBURY

          08 and Beyond

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

            Predraft Measurement Breakdown

            By Aran Smith

            6/19/06


            Official Player Measurements

            With basketball, length is obviously an extremely important factor. A player's ability to get to the rim easily, block shots and grab rebounds as well as close passing lanes can be the difference of inches. Here's a look at some of the winners and losers from the measurements released by the league. (Keep in mind NBA players official measurements are with shoes on.)


            Condors


            Here is a look at players who have the greatest wingspan in relation to their heights (without shoes):

            Senegal bigman Saer Sene's whopping 7'8.5 wingspan is 10.3% greater than his 6'11" height.

            Allen Ray has the highest discrepancy for a guard with a 6'8.5" wingspan, which is 10.3% greater than his 6'1" height.

            Ray has the size of a player 2-3 inches bigger. For instance, Ray's standing reach (8'3.5") is 2 inches greater than 6'4" JJ Redick's (8'1.5").

            Eric Hicks measured 6'4"75 without shoes on, which seems far too short for a power forward. But last year his teammate Jason Maxiell measured just 6'5" without shoes on and turned a strong predraft camp performance into a late first round selection.

            Hicks (7'1".5) wingspan is 10.2% greater than his height (6'4.75")and a 8'9".5 standing reach. (which is an inch and a half more than Shelden WIlliams' 8'8" standing reach).

            Like Maxiell, Hicks is a tough nosed warrior and his huge wingspan helps to make up for his lack of height. (Maxiell's is 7'3".5).

            Eric Williams and Shelden Williams have virtually the same dimensions (Shelden: 6'7.5" and a 7'4.25" wing) to (Eric: 6'7.25 and 7'4.25" wing), but somehow Eric has a 2.5 inch standing reach (8'10.5") advantage. Shelden Williams' (8'8") standing reach seems very low. Either it's a product of a very long neck, or the standing reach measurement was off.

            Eric Williams'
            9 inch wingspan differential is 10.2% greater than his height.

            Shelden Williams'
            wingspan is 9.92 % greater than his height.

            Will Blalock's 6'6" wingspan, which is 9.9% greater than his 5'11.25" height.

            Marco Killingsworth's 7'3"wingspan is 9.8% greater than his 6'5.5"height.

            Rudy Gay's immense 7'3" wingspan is 9.2% greater than his 6'7" height.

            Tyrus Thomas 7'3" wingspan is 8.9% greater than his 6'7.25 height, but his standing reach is actually .5" greater than Gay's.

            Renaldo Balkman registered a 7'1" wingspan 9.1% greater than his 6'5.25" height.

            Patrick O'Bryant registered a 7'5.75" wingspan 7.5% greater than his 6'11" height.

            Other players registering impressive wingspans included: LaMarcus Aldridge (7'4.75"), Hilton Armstrong (7'4") Solomon Jones (7'4.75"), Antwayne Robinson (7'2.5"), Paul Millsap (7'1.25"), Ronnie Brewer (6'11.25")



            T-Rexes


            Out of all the players measured, JJ Redick was the only one to measure a wingspan (6'3.25) lower than his height (6'4"). Redick's wingspan is 1% smaller than his height.

            Gerry McNamarra's 6'0.75" wingspan is just 1.4% greater than his 5'11.75" height.

            Steve Novak registered a 6'9.5" wingspan, 1.8% greater than his 6'8" height.

            Jordan Farmar registered a 6'3" wingspan, 3% greater than his 6'0.75" height.

            Brandon Roy registered a a 6'8" wingspan, 3.6% greater than his 6'5.25" height.


            Body Fat

            Workout fanatic Taquan Dean came in with just 3.9% body fat.

            Jordan Farmar was also impressive with just 4.4% body fat.

            Renaldo Balkman had just 4.9% body fat.

            Ronnie Brewer
            was just 5.0% body fat.

            Marco Killingsworth had an alarming 19.0% body fat.

            Rashad Anderson's 17.3 percent body fat was by far the most for guards, and attubuted to the infection he had last season.

            Yemi Nicholson's 17.2% body fat came in a close second.

            Ian Voyoukas 14.8% body fat was apparent in Orlando as well.


            Other Surprises

            NBADraft.net had erroneously eyeballed Brandon Roy as 6'5" during the season. He ended up measuring 6'5.25" without shoes making him a solid 6'6".

            Pops Mensah-Bonsu checked in taller than expected at 6'7.5" making him a legit 6'9" (in shoes).

            Aaron Gray
            was taller than expected at 7'0" without shoes.

            Also checking in with a positive height was Jordan Farmar with a solid 6'0.75" meaning he's a small 6'2" with shoes on.

            Renaldo Balkman's
            height was just 6'5.25" meaning he's just 6'6", but his huge wingspan allows him to play bigger.


            Interesting to note,
            Torin Francis, Pops Mensah Bonsu, Marcus Slaughter, Steven Smith and Eric Williams all registered .25" taller without shoes from last year.

            NBADRAFT.NET

            Copyright © 2005 Sports Phenoms, Inc. All rights reserved.

            Why Not Us ?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

              Originally posted by Frank Slade


              NBADraft.net had erroneously eyeballed Brandon Roy as 6'5" during the season. He ended up measuring 6'5.25" without shoes making him a solid 6'6".
              It's comments like this that make me wanna punch a wall. Seriously, 6'5" or 6'6", who cares?

              As for Reddick, can we pass on him now, please?

              http://draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1341

              Can't play defense, is unatheltic and weak, and he also has back problems that may require surgery at 22 years old. I suggest we let this guy be someone else bust.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

                Originally posted by JayRedd
                It's comments like this that make me wanna punch a wall. Seriously, 6'5" or 6'6", who cares?

                As for Reddick, can we pass on him now, please?

                http://draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1341

                Can't play defense, is unatheltic and weak, and he also has back problems that may require surgery at 22 years old. I suggest we let this guy be someone else bust.
                Agreed. Great college player but I've never been able to view him as an impact NBA talent. Perhaps a comparison to Steve Alford is more appropriate given the Reggie, IU, UCLA discussion.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

                  Originally posted by Jose Slaughter
                  When Miller was drafted he wasn't expected to get to Miller's level either.

                  The fact is, nobody knows for sure. The kid has talent its a matter of how much heart & desire he has. He made improvements in his game from his junior to his senior year, so he can get better.

                  I'd be willing to take the chance.
                  Of course we didn't expect the skinny kid with a flat top from UCLA that could shoot to become a bonafide first ballot Hall of Famer. We got lucky. No one (maybe Donnie Walsh saw something incredible here, but I'd imagine even he'd tell you he didn't expect this) knew we were getting Reggie Miller when we drafted Reggie Miller, if that makes sense. It's like putting all your money on 26 on a roulette wheel and hitting 26. With the Miller pick, we hit the jackpot.

                  Could that happen with Reddick? Against my better judgement, I'll say possibly. But you don't gamble a 1st Round pick on a 1-36 odds when there are definite impact players like Hilton Armstrong, Ronnie Brewer and Maurice Ager still available.

                  Using examples like "Reggie was unathletic and a good shooter" to argue that Reddick might turn out that way is a pretty far stretch, IMO. It has about as much weight to it as me saying "Let's take Saer Sene. Sure he's some dude from Africa I've never seen play. But before he went to play at U of Houston, Hakeem was some dude from Africa no one had seen play either."
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: NBA Pre-Draft Camp Heights And Weights Announced

                    http://nbadraft.net/2006campmeasurements002.asp

                    Player Rank /No step vertical/ Max vertical/ Benchpress/ Lane agility/ Sprint
                    J.J. Redick 51 27.5 33 6 10.94 3.29


                    As we reported earlier, Redick tested better than you'd think in just about every category except strength. He is by no means a great athlete, but he's not a bad one, either.
                    I've been gone since last Friday, but I'd like to throw this in here from another thread.

                    I REALLY took notice to the 3/4 court sprint. His time BEAT Rudy Gay's, and was slightly slower than Mardy Collins, Randy Foye, Shawne Williams, and Maurice Ager (who he also was right next to in verticles).

                    His lane agility test was only beaten by 3 players, who are considered the top, as well. Those being Rodney Carney (10.57), Foye (10.53), Shawne Williams (10.69).

                    And if his back is as bad as they're reporting, all that is even more impressive being so banged up. Wouldn't you agree?

                    The injury is really the only question mark I have about what kind of player he's going to be.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X