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

Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

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

  • #31
    Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

    Realistic options only....guys who could be available around #8-#10.

    1. Mike Conley
    2. Tywon Lawson
    3. Hasheem Thabeet
    4. Acie Law
    5. Yi Jianlian

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

      Originally posted by Y2J View Post
      Realistic options only....guys who could be available around #8-#10.

      1. Mike Conley
      2. Tywon Lawson
      3. Hasheem Thabeet
      4. Acie Law
      5. Yi Jianlian

      If thats the case then forget it the Hawks can keep the pick.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

        Oh, you're one of the guys who wanted fatass lazy Hibbert or one of Floridas overrated duds?

        Conley and Lawson are both potential franchise point guards, Thabeet is a cat quick 7'3" Mutumbo clone, Law is a clutch PG who could start from day 1, and Yi is compared to KG.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

          Originally posted by Y2J View Post
          Oh, you're one of the guys who wanted fatass lazy Hibbert or one of Floridas overrated duds?

          Conley and Lawson are both potential franchise point guards, Thabeet is a cat quick 7'3" Mutumbo clone, Law is a clutch PG who could start from day 1, and Yi is compared to KG.
          How exactly is Hibbert lazy and how will Horford or Brewer be a dud?

          Thabeet didnt even average double digits in scoring this year. He is the definition of raw.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

            Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
            How exactly is Hibbert lazy and how will Horford or Brewer be a dud?

            Thabeet didnt even average double digits in scoring this year. He is the definition of raw.
            There's a reason Hibbert wears a t-shirt under his jersey. He's got tits. Big ones.

            And who cares if Thabeet didnt average double figures? HE AVERAGED 3.8 BLOCKS PER GAME IN 24 MINUTES PER GAME AS AN 18 YEAR OLD FRESHMAN! He's 7'3" 265 lb. and he moves like a small forward. He's the best defensive prospect since Dikembe Mutombo 16 years ago. He's a potential multiple time DPOY. And sure his offense is raw, but like was mentioned hes very young. With his size and athleticism, all he needs is one good go to move and like that hes a double figured scorer.

            And for the record, Hibbert only averaged 5.1 ppg as a freshmen, as well as 1.3 blocks. Thats a long ways away from the 3.8 that Thabeet averaged.

            Mt. Mutumbo ----> Mt. Thabeet

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

              Originally posted by Y2J View Post
              Oh, you're one of the guys who wanted fatass lazy Hibbert or one of Floridas overrated duds?

              Conley and Lawson are both potential franchise point guards, Thabeet is a cat quick 7'3" Mutumbo clone, Law is a clutch PG who could start from day 1, and Yi is compared to KG.
              The more you post the more credibility you lose. Conley may be a potential franchise pg but you have no clue if he's coming out this season. Law I like but not enough to reach for him with a pick in the 8 -10 range.Thabeet is raw, very raw he's got alot of work to do to be a good center in this league and I don't feel like wasting a pick this year just so a guy can be halfway descent in the future, not when there are better players available. By the way "cat quck and Mutumbo don't go in the same sentence.

              I also love how you can put a guy on your list such as Yi and say he is compared to KG.You haven't seen him play, you have no idea how good he is.Your reading his description on some draft board and forming opinions on him without knowing whos scouting him and then you want to bash people for not agreeing with you.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                Marco Belineli

                Ryan Humprey

                Yi Jianli

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                  How did this suddenly come to the front page without somebody bumping it?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    How did this suddenly come to the front page without somebody bumping it?
                    I don't know, but it certainly appears it was bumped to make this Y2J character look silly.

                    As if he needed any help.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                      Wow...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                        i don't mind a front court player if it is someone like hibbert. ultimately it depends on what happens with JO. but definitely conley if he falls that far, maybe law although seth is right that is a bit of a stretch (at the 7-10 spot that is).

                        outside of the 7-10 people i'd think about or look at... jeff green and maybe marcus williams (who had a bad tourney game but has demonstrated a lot of promise over his two years)





                        in all fairness, this was long before the draft. after this proclamation, i moved on to julian wright and nick young as my pet wings of choice that draft. besides i never specified how far outside of the 7-10 i was talking...
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                          Looking at Y2J's post...the funny thing is Thabeet was a 19 year old freshman and Hibbert turned 18 halfway through the month of December during his freshman season. Hibbert was young for his class. In fact I think he is, as of now, a year older than OJ Mayo and Kevin Love and both of those guys were freshmen in college while Roy was a senior. Roy also didn't start for most of his freshman season and the Hoyas played at a MUCH slower pace than most teams. That limited possessions and touches and opportunities for points, rebounds and blocks. Many efficiency experts have done the math before and have reported on how well Roy stacked up against everyone else when you measured for the slower pace of the Hoyas. On a per minute basis Roy stacked up better than most prospects.

                          That being said Thabeet is easily the better player in terms of athleticism and shot-blocking. But he has horrible hands and while he can compensate for it to an extent, it will likely prevent him lfrom developing as a reliable, polished offensive threat. He could be a rich man's Samuel Dalembert and that ain't bad. He is more athletic than Dikembe too but Dikembe was a superior rebounder and had better all-around stamina. Thabeet was also known at one time to have a bad attitude and didn't take well to the instructions and teaching of coaches. But he may have grown up a lot and has probably put those past troubles behind him.

                          Still I love the stuff coming from the hypocritical doubters of Roy. They love to say Roy isn't athletic enough to do well in the NBA but they also gush about the unreal athleticism of guys like Oden, Thabeet, Noah and Brandon Wright. Hibbert had to face all those guys and either dominated them or more than held his own. NBA players are now raving about the athleticism of JaVale McGee and putting him at the same level of athleticism of Dwight Howard (Chris Paul and Brendan Haywood said this). But Roy dominated McGee and another freak athlete, DeAndre Jordan, during the workouts for the Pacers and the Bobcats. So wasn't all that hand wringing about lack of athleticism overblown?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                            Mcgee is built like Howard, but he looks like he's never played organized ball to me, sometimes, or basketball period.

                            Also, I saw Uconn play several times last year and it seemed like Uconn's other players would NOT pass Thabeet the ball, like they didn't trust him to know what to do with it. He would stand there wide open 15 feet away and the other players acted like he wasn't even there, quite comical, I thought.

                            It just makes me overly ridiculously excited and on the ledge of being disappointed about how Hibbert has looked. I just know I'm missing something and he's going to fail. Well maybe not.

                            But it's been awhile since something really good has happened to this team and the two rooks are impressive. Hibbert seems to be the first true Center/real big man in a long long time.

                            Back to my point. Hibbert already has a hook with either hand and the Tim Duncan like move (no I'm not comparing him to TD, but it's one of his moves) are working in everyway but going in the basket. Which sounds silly, but it'll fall if he keeps at it and I get the feeling he will.

                            Back to my point, I think Roy has 3 solid post moves and I think that is about 3 more moves than than McGee or Tabeet will ever had. See, I go to my point, eventually.

                            Anyway, Y2J being banned? Wow I never would guess it.
                            Last edited by Speed; 10-18-2008, 07:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                              i should start doing this with some of my earlier posts

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Say we get a pick in the draft- Who would you want?

                                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                                i should start doing this with some of my earlier posts
                                Like the one where you said we should be more like Atlanta?
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X