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

Rudy Gay?

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

  • Rudy Gay?

    Hello. I am new here, and this is my first post. I live in Indianapolis, and have for all 20 years of my life. I am the biggest fan of the Colts and Hoosiers that I know of, but my relationship with the Pacers is a love-hate one. No, I am not a bandwagon jumper. They just really make me mad, especially with the way they have wussed out the last couple of years, minus Reggie's last year.

    Anyways, I am curious to see how anyone thinks Rudy Gay would fit in here. To me, Gay has the most potential of anyone in the draft. The kid is 6'8/6'9, can jump out of the gym, and can shoot as well as he can put it on the floor. I think that's exactly what the Pacers need. We have too many guys who aren't factors if they aren't scoring, ie Stephen Jackson, Peja, sometimes Jermaine, etc. What we need are more slashers, playmakers, shotblockers, defenders, and rebounders...a la Detroit Pistons (who I HATE, but still...).

    Although I am a proponent of moving Jermaine, I don't believe this year is the year to trade up for the #1. Can anyone really be sold on Adam Morrison or LeMarcus Aldridge? I'm not. It should tell you something when a player like Tyrus Thomas gets a few blocks and rebounds during an incredible Final Four run, and all of a sudden he's the number 1 pick. Still, I think if the Pacers felt that they could move up to the 6-10 spots in the draft, where many mocks have Gay going, I think that could be a good option because its something we could probably do without moving JO. I also like Rodney Carney, the hometown boy, and he could still even be around at 17.

    So, anyways, just curious as to what you guys think about Gay. Like I said, I think he has the most potential of any player in the draft, but he may lack the work ethic of a Morrison. I think Gay has only scratched the surface of what he could do. But he could end up being really bad, too.
    This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.

  • #2
    Re: Rudy Gay?

    Well as of now GAY looks to be going 3rd or 4th. And if the Pacers move up they will draft Morrison. GAY isn't even being considered.
    STARBURY

    08 and Beyond

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rudy Gay?

      First things first... Welcome to Pacers Digest!

      Gay looks like he'll be a good NBA player, but he'd be a lot more interesting if we didn't already have Granger. As it is, I'm not very interested in getting a new SF because I think the one we have is going to be great.

      Originally posted by Robertmto
      Well as of now GAY looks to be going 3rd or 4th. And if the Pacers move up they will draft Morrison. GAY isn't even being considered.
      I continue to believe Morrison is a smokescreen, and they'll actually go after Roy.

      EDIT: I HATE THE MULTIPLE REPLY COMBINER!!! HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!

      That is all.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rudy Gay?

        Well either way I don't think GAY is being considered.

        And I love it love it love it
        STARBURY

        08 and Beyond

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rudy Gay?

          I think Gay could play the 2. I don't think it would be a problem to keep Danny. I love Danny by the way.

          I guess the biggest point I was trying to make, besides just seeing what anyone thought of Gay, was that this isn't the year to trade our best player for the top draft pick. Now, having said that, I am not at all opposed to moving JO, but just not for an unproven draft pick. But if we could move up to the top 5 while trading our pick, plus Tinsley/Jackson, or both, I think that would be a good move, but not to get an Aldridge or a Morrison. I think Morrison could play the 2 as well, but he isn't as athletic as Gay. I think I am saying that I think Gay will be the best player to come out of the draft. I love Morrison, and I think he will do well, but he just isn't Larry Bird. And if Bird likes him because he's modeled his game after him (which I'm not saying Bird does think that...just if he does...) then Bird would be making another stupid, selfish front office move (Sarunas).

          I think JO is our best player, but ultimately, I don't feel like he is going to be the one to lead us to a championship.

          We should package Tinsley or Johnson and our 17 to the Celtics for their 6 pick, according to Chad Ford.
          This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rudy Gay?

            Originally posted by clemdogg
            We should package Tinsley or Johnson and our 17 to the Celtics for their 6 pick, according to Chad Ford.
            I'd be all for that trade, but Gay is not who I'd use the pick on. Roy, Morrison, Brewer, Foye, and Redick would be higher on my list, and at least half of those players should be available at #6.
            "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
            -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rudy Gay?

              Originally posted by clemdogg
              We should package Tinsley or Johnson and our 17 to the Celtics for their 6 pick, according to Chad Ford.
              That right there is a good deal, well I'd trade Tinsely for a Nestle' Crunch or a Hershey Bar just to get him off our salary lounging out in a suit 3/4th of the season.

              I like Morrison but, trading O'neal for the #1 doesn't make any sense, since we are 95% going to resign Peja. Then we'd have NO true bigmen. If Redick isn't injury prone take him at 6, Gay is nice but he is going to go 3rd-4th won't make it to 6th. Also, tyrus thomas talk about a hyped player I haven't saw a hyped player like this in a long time. They keep reguarding him as "shaq like" but he's only 6'9 and 85 lbs lighter. I wouldn't take Thomas at 17th he is to small for the PF position, way to small for the C and is not a 2or3 by any means basically useless in the NBA unless he grows 2in or 3inches before the draft.

              Oh and welcome to the Pacers Digest.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rudy Gay?

                to the site.
                "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rudy Gay?

                  Originally posted by clemdogg
                  We should package Tinsley or Johnson and our 17 to the Celtics for their 6 pick, according to Chad Ford.
                  Minny has the 6 pick. Boston has the 7.

                  If they'd trade the #7 and Scalabrine for the #17 and AJ, that would be cool. But I don't see any other workable deals.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rudy Gay?

                    Originally posted by Anthem
                    EDIT: I HATE THE MULTIPLE REPLY COMBINER!!! HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!
                    Yup.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rudy Gay?

                      I maybe understand taking Roy before taking Gay, but I just can't understand how anyone thinks Redick is going to do squat in the NBA. Unless this guy learns how to become a PG, what is he going to do in the NBA? He isn't going to be the number 1 option on any team, he isn't going to be coming off numerous screens, he isn't going to have Coach K on the sideline, and he isn't going to have smaller guards on him. Tell me, what is going to do against Kobe or Wade? Squat. I mean, consider Kyle Korver, who is essentially the same player except he's 6'7 - 6'8 and he is a little behind J.J. in shooting, and he is averaging 9 pts/g. And Redick is also a defensive liability, and still would be even if he learned how to play point.

                      So sorry if I am offending anyone, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. I like JJ a lot - he is probably the best shooter I have ever seen (maybe behind Reggie ) but he just won't cut in the league. Just won't do it.

                      And also, the Chad Ford deal wasn't proposed by Chad Ford. In his mock draft, he had the Celtics taking Gay at 7 (I mistakenly said 6). He only correctly pointed out that the Celtics really don't need anymore younger players, and would probably use their pick to trade for a solid veteran - most likely filling their void at point. I immediately and obviously thought of our situation.

                      Again, I am not saying trade JO for the number 1, or for any draft pick for that matter. No. You don't trade our best and only (Harrison?) big. My whole point was if we could get a trade to move up to take Roy or Gay (ie the Boston trade), I would do that...but not at the cost of JO.
                      This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rudy Gay?

                        I must have missed it, is there any report that a Boston trade is on the table? Or is that made up?
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rudy Gay?

                          No. Theres a link for Chad Ford's mock draft on this site. He has Boston taking Gay, but says they will probably trade their pick for a veteran or a pg. I just felt like that made sense for us.
                          This is only my opinion. Please hold it against me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rudy Gay?

                            If we trade up in the top 5, I would bet cold hard cash that Roy is who we have our sites set on. Gay is an enigma to me. Great talent, questionable heart, I dunno he looks like Darius Miles 2. Maybe without the drug problems tho.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rudy Gay?

                              A two SF lineup could be interesting in a few years. Gay and Granger and the F spots, JO at C?
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X