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

This team is DUE some luck

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

  • #16
    Re: This team is DUE some luck

    Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
    Well, it maybe a 2 man draft, but those 2 men appear to be guaranteed studs. And the rest maybe a crap shoot, but to build off KStat's analogy you might end up with a Ferrari at best, but at worst you're probably walking out with an Audi. There are no possible Daewoo's in this first round.
    Find a single 1st round NBA draft that wasn't at least 50% "Daewoos".

    What makes anyone think this one will be any different? Any logical explanation?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: This team is DUE some luck

      ..other than the fact the NBA took the best of last year's draft class and made them stay a year to lump along with this year's?

      The list of prospects is a who's who of young talent. Not a single no-name project in the first round, wheras previous drafts were full of guys nobody had seen play before.

      This year's draft reminds me of the 1996 draft. A bunch of proven players instead of the usual underdeveloped projects.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: This team is DUE some luck

        I'll take my chances on next years draft over pick 10 this year. If we trade JO and rebuild next years pick could well be a top 5 pick. Eventually the pick goes to the Hawks anyway might as well get it out of the way if not a top 3 pick.

        Next year I think is top 5 then the following years is Hawks regardless. If this team slumps bad for 2 years and pick 10 if we had this year is slow to develop -we could be giving #1 overall in 2 years to the Hawks .

        Several teams have 2 or more picks in this years draft Suns and Sixers have- 3#1's. Pistons and Bobcats each have 2. Bird and Walsh may find a way to trade back into the draft and not trade JO.

        Just because a pick is top 10 doesn't guarantee a star.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: This team is DUE some luck

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          UB, you already got Danny Granger at #17 in an average draft.

          ...and now you don't care about a #12 pick in a loaded draft?

          I'm trying to follow that logic, but I just can't. I'm looking at the top 20 guys available in this draft, and I don't see a single Devan George type in the bunch.

          The entire first round is like a Porsche giveaway to the first 30 customers at an auto dealership. Yeah, they're different and some may look better than others, but no matter what happens, everybody is walking away with a freaking Porsche...

          Guys like Tiago Splitter, Marcus Williams and Alando Tucker are going to be 25-30 picks.

          In previous years, those guys would have gone top-15, possibly top-10. That's how sick this draft class is.


          So let me get this straight. This draft is so good that all 30 players are going to be starters in the NBA. I'll believe it when I see it. I guarantee there will be at least 4 or 5 players that are complete non-players in the top 20 and two or three in the top 12 or 13.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: This team is DUE some luck

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            So let me get this straight. This draft is so good that all 30 players are going to be starters in the NBA. I'll believe it when I see it. I guarantee there will be at least 4 or 5 players that are complete non-players in the top 20 and two or three in the top 12 or 13.
            No, I think that the entire first round (top 28 at least) has the potential to develop into NBA level starters. I've seen all but one of them play, %90 of them more than once. They all impress the hell out of me.

            I think some guys will squander the opportunity, but the fact is player A drafted 25th in 2007 will have a much higher ceiling than player B drafted 25th most any other year.

            as for 2 or 3 in the top 12 being complete busts, that would be an absolute shock to me. Too much proven talent there.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: This team is DUE some luck

              As usual a lot of picks will be once again based on potential of 20-21 year olds -- lets see Darko Milicic sure thing at #2. Potential is what gets coaches and gms fired.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: This team is DUE some luck

                Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                As usual a lot of picks will be once again based on potential of 20-21 year olds -- lets see Darko Milicic sure thing at #2. Potential is what gets coaches and gms fired.
                Darko was an unknown project. That's what makes the 2007 class so impressive-%99 of them are guys who have proven something on a major level. There is no Darko in this draft that nobody's heard of.

                I'll admit Batam is the one guy that I haven't seen play, but everything I've read suggests he isn't some untested child. He's excelled at his age level his entire life, something Darko never did.

                Considering his age though, he and Thabeet are probably the two guys in the draft with the most to prove. Albeit I still think Thabeet could play for most any NBA team next year, even in spot minutes.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: This team is DUE some luck

                  Kstat I'll go this draft should be a very good draft . But no way 28 will NBA starters no way. Proven talent in top 12 at least 4 will be one year college players . Oden and Durant are givens. Conley at 6'1 is not Chris Paul (at least not to me) , Spencer Hawes looks good but proven not yet.

                  Even Splitter , Tucker limit range at sg too small sf ,and rail thin Marcus Williams are questionable in my eyes.

                  Every year we hear how great this guy is or that guy is and there are are flops this year will be no different. We'll see in 4 years how many truly are nba stars.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: This team is DUE some luck

                    Conley isn't Paul, but I do think he's a given. He showed at OSU he can play PG at an NBA level.

                    Splitter, Tucker and williams would be questionable top-10 picks in most drafts. but at 25-30, theyre absolute steals.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: This team is DUE some luck

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      ..other than the fact the NBA took the best of last year's draft class and made them stay a year to lump along with this year's?
                      The top-2 of the draft class is far stronger than average, no doubt about it, but outside of that it's your normal NBA draft, as big a crap shoot as ever. At least half the players picked in the first round wont play more than 3 seasons in the NBA, per the usual. Alando Tucker? Lousy defender with a poor shooting touch. Marcus Williams? See Alando Tucker. You get the picture.

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      The list of prospects is a who's who of young talent. Not a single no-name project in the first round, wheras previous drafts were full of guys nobody had seen play before.
                      Not really. I watch tons of college basketball and I have no idea who half the players listed in the 2007 mock at NBADraft are. Nicolas Batum? Marco Belinelli? Morris Almond?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      This year's draft reminds me of the 1996 draft. A bunch of proven players instead of the usual underdeveloped projects.
                      Not really. First of all, this years draft isn't even close to the 1996 draft in terms of quality or quantity. Second of all, your description of the 1996 draft couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Of the 11 All-Star's out of the 1996 Draft, only 3 could be classified as well-known veterans....

                      Marcus Camby (Junior)
                      Ray Allen (Junior)
                      Steve Nash (Senior)

                      And it's debatable over how well known Steve Nash was at the time. Outside of those 3, there were....

                      2 sophomores (A.I., Toine)
                      2 freshmen (Reef, Marbury)
                      2 high schoolers (Kobe, J.O.)
                      2 completely unknown foreigners (Peja, Big Z).

                      If anything, 1996 was the year of the gamble that paid off.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: This team is DUE some luck

                        Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                        rail thin Marcus Williams are questionable in my eyes.
                        Because he's thin?

                        I heard about some guy who played for the Pacers a few times, rail thin is how they described him coming out of college, too. Never got bigger. Maybe my memory is cloudy but I think he had a pretty OK career.

                        Everybody isn't going to be a starter from this draft. Some guys will have injury issues, some guys will struggle on defense, some are just overrated (Noah, for example).

                        But it's still by far the best group of players in the draft in a long, long time.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: This team is DUE some luck

                          What is the point of getting young talent if we have a coach who can't develop them. And have management that seems to have a love affair with that coach. It's time to stop changing our roster so much and change the people making the changes. Indiana is too loyal to their leaders/legends. Evan Byah and that KKK leader in the 20s is prove of that.
                          Worse management in the history of sports

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: This team is DUE some luck

                            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                            Because he's thin?

                            I heard about some guy who played for the Pacers a few times, rail thin is how they described him coming out of college, too. Never got bigger. Maybe my memory is cloudy but I think he had a pretty OK career.

                            Everybody isn't going to be a starter from this draft. Some guys will have injury issues, some guys will struggle on defense, some are just overrated (Noah, for example).

                            But it's still by far the best group of players in the draft in a long, long time.
                            Reggie Miller was the #2 all-time leading scorer at legendary UCLA and was a sharpshooter. Marcus Williams is a worse shooter than Marquis Daniels and doesn't have half of Quis' overall talent. He's not much better than horrible Rawle Marshall, and is a far inferior defender to Rawle. If we want someone on Williams level, we could just trade Marshall and a future 2nd for Francisco Garcia.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: This team is DUE some luck

                              is this draft better than last year...
                              Aldridge
                              Worse management in the history of sports

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: This team is DUE some luck

                                Originally posted by youseeme09 View Post
                                is this draft better than last year...
                                Aldridg
                                Yes, on the strength of the top-5. Outside of that though, it's about the same.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X