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

Good article on the draft

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

  • Good article on the draft

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...2=stateChanged

    Stock Watch: Beasley's building case, Mayo's slipping

    By Chad Ford
    ESPN.com







    With the college basketball season roughly a third of the way over, it's time to check on the draft status of some NBA prospects.
    Insider spoke with a number of NBA scouts and executives to get their takes on who's hot and who's not on the draft stock meter.
    Here's what they're saying…
    Cream of the Crop



    Michael Beasley, PF, Freshman, Kansas State
    Beasley has used the first third of the season to solidify his status as the top prospect in the draft. His size, athleticism, scoring ability and relentless work on the glass make him a prototypical No. 1 pick.

    Unless he suffers a severe drop-off in production during conference play or revisits concerns about his work ethic or off-the-court problems, it's tough to see anyone knocking him off the top of our big board. It's his position to lose.


    Derrick Rose, PG, Freshman, Memphis
    Rose is second by default. His production has been good, but not great. A high-profile, head-to-head matchup with USC's O.J. Mayo ended up as a flop for both players. However, Rose's stock continues to soar because he has his team playing at a super-high level.

    Rose has all the physical attributes to be a great NBA player and he has leadership ability. He is drawing comparisons to the Jazz's Deron Williams because of his size, but Rose is an even better athlete. I think he's more of a combo between Chris Paul and Williams.


    Eric Gordon, SG, Freshman, Indiana
    Gordon was ranked No. 4 on our Top 100 back on July 1 (with Mayo No. 3). But in the past month he's been listed as the third-best prospect in the draft on most NBA scouts' boards, passing Mayo. The two are getting head-to-head comparisons from scouts and Gordon is winning -- but not by a landslide.

    He's shooting the lights out and has been a much more efficient scorer. Scouts also feel he has a better basketball IQ than Mayo.


    O.J. Mayo, SG, Freshman, USC
    He is averaging nearly 20 points a game as a freshman. He's shooting 46 percent from the field and 41 percent from 3. His turnovers are high and his team has struggled a little, but it's not a disgrace to lose to teams like Kansas and Memphis.

    Mayo is not, as some in the media have suggested, dropping like a rock on NBA draft boards. All the people I've spoken with are still high on him. He may not be the No. 1 pick in the draft anymore, but he's not slipping out of the top 10, either.

    Who's Hot?



    DeAndre Jordan, C, Freshman, Texas A&M
    I've gotten a number of questions about Jordan. How can a guy averaging 10 points and seven rebounds a game be ranked as the No. 5 prospect in the draft? A few things come to mind:

    The freshman big man is putting up those numbers in 20 minutes per game; he's shooting a mind-boggling 80 percent from the field; and athletic big men often take a little longer to develop.

    Jordan would be the No. 1 pick in the draft if he were producing anywhere near the numbers of the guys ranked ahead of him. If he comes out, he'll go high even though he's a work in progress. With Andrew Bynum now busting out in L.A., the chances that an NBA team gambles on him early in the draft only increases. To me he's the one guy who, if he continues to improve, could pass the four guys currently ranked ahead of him come June.


    D.J. Augustin, PG, Sophomore, Texas
    There's an interesting debate going on about who the second-best point guard prospect is behind Rose. The top two candidates are Augustin and UNC's Ty Lawson. For almost a year, Lawson's been mentioned as a possible lottery pick. Meanwhile, we had Augustin ranked No. 14 on our big board last year around this time, though some scouts strongly disagreed with that assessment.

    The feeling, at that time, was that Kevin Durant was inflating Augustin's stock. With Durant gone, Augustin was supposed to drop off. Instead he's having an amazing year, averaging 20 points and 6 assists while shooting nearly 50 percent from the field.


    The more you watch Augustin, the more you can see some Steve Nash in him. He lacks size and is somewhat reckless at times, but when you look at the total package, and his age, I think there's a chance Augustin goes in the top 10 in this draft. Lawson isn't far behind, but at this point in the season we're giving a slight edge to the Texas sophomore.


    Brook Lopez, C, Sophomore, Stanford
    Lopez looked like a potential top-10 pick in the 2007 draft before inexplicably deciding to return to Stanford for his sophomore season, only to start skipping classes. Lopez was put on academic probation and missed the first nine games of the season for Stanford. Since returning on Dec. 19, Lopez has picked up right where he left off last season, averaging 19.5 points in his first two games back.

    Lopez isn't a perfect prospect as a center. He's just an average rebounder, but he has a very developed offensive game -- he can score both inside and outside. He's also a very good defender. As a high-post center, he looks like he has a bright future in the league. We've moved him back into our top 10 at No. 8. Assuming he avoids future bonehead moves, Lopez looks like he'll be a lock for the top 10.


    Trent Plaisted, C, Junior, BYU
    We touted Plaisted as a first-round pick at the start of the 2006-07 season, and he responded with a disappointing sophomore effort. This year he's redeeming himself big-time, averaging 17.4 points and 9.8 rebounds, shooting 59 percent from the field in 27 minutes per game for BYU this season.

    Plaisted's 24-point, 17-rebound performance against North Carolina had scouts declaring he's a better pro prospect than UNC's Tyler Hansbrough; Plaisted is bigger, more explosive as a leaper and is becoming much more active on the glass. He's ranked No. 21 on our big board, but he still has room to rise in the rankings.


    JaVale McGee, C, Sophomore, Nevada
    On Thursday versus North Carolina, McGee confirmed what NBA scouts have been saying about him for the past few weeks -- he's one of the most promising young big men in college basketball. McGee is a legit 7-footer with a huge wingspan and excellent athleticism. Defensively, he's an excellent shot-blocker and a good rebounder. Offensively, he'll surprise you with his shooting touch and his ability to put the ball on the floor and create his own shot. He still needs a lot of polish in the low post offensively and he needs more muscle, but it's clear that his 14-point, 7-rebound, 4-block performance against UNC is just a peek at things to come.


    Scouts have him pegged as a late first-rounder right now, but you know how big guys rise on draft day. If he's smart, he'll stay another year at Nevada and flirt with the lottery in 2009. Both of his parents were former pro basketball players, so there's a good chance he doesn't need the money and will get good advice about coming out early. He's not ready for the NBA right now, but he has all the tools to be an excellent NBA player down the road.

    Who's Not?



    Kosta Koufos, C, Freshman, Ohio State
    Koufos came into the season with a significant amount of hype after dominating in junior play for the Greek national team this summer. He started the season hot but then hit a buzzsaw at a critical scouting time for him. A number of NBA scouts watched him live in two high-profile matchups versus Texas A&M and North Carolina. Koufos struggled mightily in both.

    Matched up against A&M's Jordan, Koufos shot 4-for-16 from the floor and grabbed just five rebounds. Five days later against UNC, he went 1-for-10 from the field and grabbed four boards.


    Koufos has since put together a handful of good games, including a 17-point, 10-rebound performance against Florida. However, his bad outings have damaged his stock and he's slipped to No. 13 on our board. He certainly has time to rehabilitate his stock in conference play.


    Roy Hibbert, C, Senior, Georgetown
    Hibbert probably wishes he had declared for the NBA draft last season along with Jeff Green. Hibbert was supposed to be the go-to guy for Georgetown this season, but his numbers remain underwhelming. He's averaging 12 points and seven rebounds per game -- basically the same numbers he's put up the last two years.

    Hibbert continues to underperform on the boards despite his size. And he really bombed in a matchup with Memphis, where he tallied six points and six rebounds and was outplayed by 6-foot-9 center Joey Dorsey. Of all the scouts I spoke with, none had Hibbert on their list of Top 10 prospects. We have him at No. 18.


    Brandon Rush, SG, Jr., Kansas; Bill Walker, SF, Fr., Kansas State
    We love the potential of Rush and Walker, but both are coming back from knee surgery and are struggling to find the same explosiveness and consistency that they had before they were injured. While it's likely both will get stronger as the season progresses, they have slipped badly on draft boards.

    Sleeper Alert

    In November we introduced you to Sudanese big man John Riek. Riek set the scouting world ablaze this summer after dominating at the LeBron James skills camp. He's been playing at the Winchendon Academy prep school in Massachusetts and I recently spoke with a coach who got a couple of up-close looks at Riek.


    Here's the latest scouting report:
    "He looks like he's a legit 7 feet, 7-1 in shoes. He has extraordinary length, I'm thinking closer to a 7-8½ wingspan. He's a very raw prospect from a physical standpoint. He's not in good shape at all. He already has a great physique, however. His body is reminiscent of Amare Stoudemire coming out of high school. From the waist up, he looks great. He has broad shoulders. Needs to work on his lower body. He doesn't really jump that high. I heard his vertical is 36 inches, but I didn't see it. He's athletic but he's not super athletic.


    "The thing I really like about him is that he keeps the ball high. He knows how to play with fully extended arms. He gets full extension on his jump hook using both his left and right hand. He doesn't bring rebounds down below his shoulders. It takes years to teach that stuff. Obviously someone has been working with him.


    "Offensively he has a soft touch around the basket. However, he has no clue how to shoot from any distance. On the offensive end he has no idea where to post and how to post. He doesn't know how to play without the ball. Once he gets the ball in his hands, he improves greatly.


    "Defensively is where he shines. His instincts on shot-blocking and rebounding are very good. He naturally knows how to find the ball on the defensive end. He really chases balls. I think he could be a Top 3 pick if he gets the right coaching before the draft. He's a big risk, but the physical package is there and he has enough tools to show he can be a basketball player."


    That's just one man's opinion, but it lines up with what others are saying. He's getting more and more Bynum comparisons -- a project that could pay off down the road. As most veteran scouts know, these "projects" usually bomb; Bynum is the exception, not the rule. But Riek continues to intrigue NBA scouts.


    The biggest question that remains is whether he'll be in the draft. Several college teams, including Florida and UConn, are pursuing him. According to sources close to the situation, the plan is for him to play in the Nike Hoop Summit in April for the international squad. If he blows up the way Mohammed Saer Sene did two years ago, he'll probably enter the draft. If not, he may choose to go to college if he can become academically eligible.



    We have him currently ranked No. 9 on our big board. He could obviously go higher based on what we're hearing, but he could also go much lower based on the risk factor. It's still too early to tell.
    ---------------



    What the heck happened? I added their heights to the article, right before their position, and the heights disappeared.
Working...
X