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

A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

    I was a little bit surprised that Pacers passed on Shannon Brown in the draft, especially considering their needs at the guard positions. Toward the end of this article are some comments about his performance so far in the Vegas summer league

    http://www.nba.com/features/livinglasvegas_060711.html

    Living Las Vegas: Vegas Summer League
    By NBA TV's Rick Kamla

    LAS VEGAS, July 11, 2006 -- Hello again, freaks. I sincerely hope your summer is getting along swimmingly. And I sincerely hope you’re watching the 2006 Vegas Summer League on NBA TV.

    As for the NBA’s resident freak, I’m out here in Sin City calling VSL games with Tim Capstraw (radio analyst for the Nets) and we’re having an uncommon blast. To wit, after calling a pair of competitive games, during which we interviewed Walt Frazier and Terry Porter, we went out to dinner with play-by-play legend Joel Meyers. Not only is Joel a longtime hero of mine, but I would eat my own pinky to have his million-dollar pipes.

    Anyway, we aren’t the only cats having fun in Vegas, as several young ballers are scorching the nets at the Cox Pavilion. And after one day of calling/watching the action, here are some first – and hopefully – lasting impressions ...

    The talk of the 2006 Vegas Summer League isn’t the fact that every – and I mean EVERY – casino has a quasi-burlesque show. The buzz at the VSL is the fact that Brandon Roy is the early favorite for ROY…as in, rookie of the year.

    I hate to say it, and I may be forced to consume these words in a few months, but my Timberwolves erred in trading Roy for Randy Foye on draft night. Foye has scored at least 20 points in all three games here in Vegas, but he’s much more Ben Gordon than Dwyane Wade in that he’s exclusively a scorer at this point. Don’t believe me? Well, Foye is averaging 25.7 points and 0.7 assists in 33.3 minutes.

    Roy, on the other hand, is averaging 15 points, 4 assists, and 2.5 rebounds in just 25 minutes through four games. But it goes beyond numbers, as Roy has a vibe, a poise, and an aura that screams star. He plays both ends with similar zeal, he shoots jumpers from all distances, drives to the hole, creates his own shot at will, posts up and he is running the point effectively when starter Marque Perry is out of the game.

    Both Roy and Foye will be terrific pros, but Roy is a cut above. Simple as that.

    While we’re on the subject of Portland, lemme just say that Martell Webster is going to develop into a 20-point-per-game scorer in this league. His 'J' was so wet in the first half of today’s game, the Wizards needed a blow dryer to slow him down. I now know why the Blazers took him sixth overall in the 2005 draft. Webster is averaging a team-high 18.3 points through four games.

    With regards to Amare Stoudemire’s rehab assignment, he is averaging 20.7 points, six rebounds, and 57 percent shooting through three games. Monday’s game was the first in which he did not score 20-plus points, and he earned a DQ with his 10th foul, but I was reassured by the fact he wasn’t favoring his knees, flexing them, looking down at them, or acknowledging in any way that he’s recovering from a pair of surgeries.

    All that said, Amare isn’t rock-star Amare just yet and I don’t know when he will be. He still looked a little stiff and basically not as athletic or explosive as he was during that unbelievable 2004-05 season. But we are talking about a microfracture survivor who also required a scope on the OTHER knee in April, so let’s all take a deep breath and remember that patience is a virtue.

    The Cavaliers absolutely stole Michigan State guard Shannon Brown with the 25th pick. How he wasn’t a lottery pick, I’ll never understand. In today’s game against the Warriors, Brown had 15 points, six assists, four rebounds, and two steals in 29 minutes. But as strong as that line is, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Brown, like Roy, can play the one and two with seemingly equal effectiveness and he’s a handful on the defensive end, with limitless energy to harass his opponent.

    If you’re wondering why the Cavaliers aren’t in the market to re-sign Flip Murray, wonder no more. And let this be a warning to veterans PGs Eric Snow and Damon Jones that Brown is coming to town and he’s looking for your minutes.

    Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Houston’s John Lucas III, who electrified the crowd – and broadcasters – with his shot-making and dime-dropping. Not once or twice, but three times in the first half he drove to the hoop and went high off glass for a highlight-quality basket. He finished with 23 points and eight assists, earning Toshiba player of the day honors. Perhaps most impressive of all, he played the entire 40-minute game. Through four games, Lucas has posted point totals of 26, 25, 23, and 23.

    I realize Lucas is generously listed as 5-11, but you can’t underestimate the fight in the dog or the fire in the belly, and John Lucas III is flush in both regards.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

    Loved him at MSU. He'll fit in well with Bron and Larry Hughes on the perimeter in Cleveland.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:
    @8pts9secs

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

      I refuse to even consider a mistake based upon summer league play.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        I refuse to even consider a mistake based upon summer league play.
        same here, Ill give my opinion on this draft class next june
        If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
        [/center]
        @thatguyjoe84

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

          I'm not worried about passing on him.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

            I don't know that we will ever call picking Williams a mistake, but in terms of drafting for need and nurturing a guy for ONE position, I've been suspecting we may regret passing on Brown. Ultimately, he was the guy I REALLY wanted and thought we would pick and should have picked.

            We've already got a someone like Shawne on the team in Granger. The fact that I hear rumors of making Shawne play SG...are...ah...disheartening to me. We needed a SG. There aren't many in the league, compared to SFs and PFs. I hate the cliche 'no-brainer", but that's what drafting Shannon was to me.
            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

              Pacers already had the Marquis Daniels trade in motion before the draft. They felt the 6'6 Daniels is more versitile than the undersized 6'3 combo guard Brown.

              In addition they felt a need to add a bigger potentially 2 position forward with upside in Shawne Williams. I think in time people in Indiana will be very happy with the choice.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                We've already got a someone like Shawne on the team in Granger. The fact that I hear rumors of making Shawne play SG...are...ah...disheartening to me. We needed a SG. There aren't many in the league, compared to SFs and PFs. I hate the cliche 'no-brainer", but that's what drafting Shannon was to me.
                just because we have one guy in that spot (Danny) you have to consider that 1 guy wont be healthy so you gotta add depth and thats what the Pacers are doing with it comes to add another guy even though we have a solid player in that position
                If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                [/center]
                @thatguyjoe84

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

                  Could you wait about at least 1 year before you start talking about what Next DWade, Next Kobe, Next Jason Kidd we passed on.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

                    Originally posted by aero
                    just because we have one guy in that spot (Danny) you have to consider that 1 guy wont be healthy
                    And remember that we are the Pacers, so you can change consider to expect
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:
                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: A good looking player the Pacers passed on: Shannon Brown

                      How do you think Marquis Daniels would have done in that game, if he was playing for his own stats?

                      I agree that maybe Brown will be a better overall talent than Williams, but his ceiling isn't as high, and Brown won't be a better player than Daniels, and probably won't be better than Fred Jones.

                      So, really, he'd be a 2nd or 3rd option at SG.

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X