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

Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

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

  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
    This team doesn't really need instant offense unless it comes from inside the paint. We didn't lose games this season because we couldn't score enough points. We lost them because we couldn't stop anybody.
    I apologize his name is Gary Forbes not Steve Forbes. Here is what draft express says about him after Portsmouth.
    Standing just a shade under 6-7, with a nice build at 216 pounds, good strength, an excellent 6-10 ¾ wingspan, and solid, although not freakish athleticism—Forbes was well equipped to overwhelm virtually any defender that was thrown at him on the wing. The fact that he’s tough, aggressive, an excellent ball-handler and has a very advanced scoring instincts clearly did not hurt. Forbes can go either left or right with excellent body control and loves to use crafty spin moves and hesitation dribbles to keep his defender guessing about his next move. He’s strong enough to just bully players to the rim at the collegiate level, and gets to the free throw line at a superb rate, but at times isn’t quite explosive enough to finish around the rim. At times he got caught over-penetrating into the lane, looking a bit out of control in the process. Forbes is also a very adept passer as his outrageous 8.7 assists per game in this tournament would indicate—his court vision is strong and he seemed very motivated to create shots for others, which wasn’t always the case at times at the collegiate level—where his shot-selection often seemed questionable. He shot just 41% from the field and 29% for 3 at UMass, dominating the ball on a team that probably needed him to play a bit selfishly at times. Forbes can hit 3-pointers, as he showed at this tournament and by connecting on 1.6 attempts per game, but he’s still way too streaky and will surely need to improve this part of his game if he’s going to stick at the next level.

    Defensively, Forbes did not have to guard power forwards like he did at UMass often his senior year, which helped us evaluate his pro prospects more effectively. His size, length and strength are all impressive for a swingman, and will clearly help him at the next level, but his average lateral quickness raises some doubts about whether he’ll be trusted enough on this end of the floor to see many minutes. Shedding some weight, getting smarter and improving his footwork will be a must for him to stick in the NBA down the road, but he has the tools to do so if he commits himself.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      He will be slightly bigger than Jeff with more defensive energy that is why I like him. I think with the Pacers that we always need a hustler/energy guy. Someone to be a catalyst for a defensive mindset. Armstrong was that 2 years ago but now we don't have that guy.
      Although I do not mind having another "Jeff Foster-like" player in our Big Man rotation ( given the way our offense/defense works, we can never have enough of those ), I think that Frontcourt Hustle/Energy type players that can come in and do a decent job of defending in the Low-Post while providing energy and rebounding can be found through FA.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

        Originally posted by owl View Post
        Will, when I watch Robin play I think Jeff Foster. What is it about his game you find
        appealing for the Pacers? I want a big who at least is great in at least one area and
        capable at some point in the others. In this draft that means Thabeet, Love and maybe
        Arthur off the top of my head at least from where the Pacers are picking.
        Guard wise I see no one available at 11 who would not be a reach.
        A Jeff Foster that blocks shots too, wouldn't be bad.

        Maybe it's a reach, but really what I'm thinking is theres really not much difference in twins potential, so if Brook is worthy of the 3rd pick in the draft why not try for Robin with our second round pick? (#41) He's already an excellent defender and his offense was getting better at the end of the year.

        Chad Ford has him ranked 31st, but I think he will go in the first round, probably around 18-30, so we would have to make a trade. Thabeet and Love appeal to me too.

        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2...had&page=InOut

        Brook Lopez, C, Stanford
        Brook Lopez has the physical tools and offensive abilities to be an excellent NBA player. He has great size, length and above-average athleticism. He's an effective scorer in the paint and can stretch the defense away from the basket. Right now he projects as the top center in the draft and a potential Top 5 pick.

        Robin Lopez, C, Stanford
        Robin Lopez is more athletic and has a better motor than his brother. He's an active rebounder and excellent shot-blocker. He lacks any real polish on the offensive end of the floor, but he has improved in that area this season. Right now teams see him as a defensive stopper in the Anderson Varejao mold. He's probably a late first to early second-round pick.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Although I do not mind having another "Jeff Foster-like" player in our Big Man rotation ( given the way our offense/defense works, we can never have enough of those ), I think that Frontcourt Hustle/Energy type players that can come in and do a decent job of defending in the Low-Post while providing energy and rebounding can be found through FA.
          You could say that about any position.

          To me this draft is all about the safest pick that will provide the long term building blocks that will get us past the 1st round playoffs. I think most of the time we look at the draft and see potential with alot of question marks. Is the guy big/tall enough? Does he have a good work ethic? Is he just a tweener or can he develop pg skills. With Robin Lopez you know what you are going to get. High energy, offensive rebounds and a 7'0 defensive presence in the middle. He has the potential to eat more and get bigger so he will surpass Jeff Foster in his ability to be an actual Center.

          Offensively he has as much rust as a high school urinal but thats not to say we can't throw a mint in there and freshen him up abit. Certianly he can be more than Jeff "The Clank" Foster.

          Lastly Bigs cost more. The FA is the last place I would want to get a big man. MOst of them just pad their stats in their contract year anyhow.
          Can someone say Erick Dampier.
          Last edited by Gamble1; 04-17-2008, 04:02 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            Offensively he has as much rust as a high school urinal but thats not to say we can't throw a mint in there and freshen him up abit. Certianly he can be more than Jeff "The Clank" Foster.
            Good one....

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            Lastly Bigs cost more. The FA is the last place I would want to get a big man. MOst of them just pad their stats in their contract year anyhow.
            Can someone say Erick Dampier.
            Erick Dampier...there, I said it

            If we draft Westbrook at the 11th spot...,and somehow acquired a 2nd 1st rounder....then I wouldn't mind drafting Robin Lopez as some pseudo-hybrid-lovechild of Anderson Varajeo and Joakim Noah. But Robin Lopez at the 11th spot is too high for him to be drafted.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

              Well Love and Rush are both in the draft now.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                Interesting....when I read Ford's blurb about Marreese Speights, I'm thinking that this is the type of player that Bird would want to replace JONeal with.


                ESPN.COM
                Written by Chad Ford


                Marreese Speights, F/C, Florida*
                Speights is one of the most efficient low-post scorers in college basketball. He's not especially flashy, but can be brutally effective in the paint, both scoring and grabbing rebounds. Scouts question his position a little and his conditioning, but overall they project him as a late lottery to mid first-round pick.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • ESPN's 2008 NBA Mock Draft

                  The machine tendency is the Pacers drafting D.J. Augustin with the 11th pick. Wanna play? Here's the link. Tells us your results.

                  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/lottery2008/mockdraft

                  Comment


                  • Re: ESPN's 2008 NBA Mock Draft

                    We've been doing this for months now. It is neat, though.

                    Comment


                    • Re: ESPN's 2008 NBA Mock Draft

                      Top pick after about 5 tries. Had us picking Rose. Mostly comes out at number 11, selecting Augustin.

                      Comment


                      • Re: ESPN's 2008 NBA Mock Draft

                        I did it 129 times last night and got B. Lopez 4 times with the 3 rd pick, and the rest were all Augustine at the 11, 12, and 13, spots.

                        However, I think Bird is going big from what was said in the Simon transcript and on the Jim O'B show.

                        O'B siad on his show they didn't think there was a point guard that would start for them in the draft other than Rose.

                        So the thing to do is look at the bigs after the Pacers pick and you will get a better idea of who the Pacers will pick.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Interesting....when I read Ford's blurb about Marreese Speights, I'm thinking that this is the type of player that Bird would want to replace JONeal with.
                          Sounds like another version of IKE to me.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Good one....


                            Erick Dampier...there, I said it

                            If we draft Westbrook at the 11th spot...,and somehow acquired a 2nd 1st rounder....then I wouldn't mind drafting Robin Lopez as some pseudo-hybrid-lovechild of Anderson Varajeo and Joakim Noah. But Robin Lopez at the 11th spot is too high for him to be drafted.
                            I totally agree thats to high for Robin.. I also think its to high for a undersized shooting guard who you hope can develop into a pg.
                            There are no easy choices here but drafting off of a second string pg is risky at best.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                              There are a couple of Aussies projected to go late first round to second round in the coming draft.

                              Nathan Jawai 6-10 280 PF/C 1986

                              a flat out bruiser, a developing offensive game. might lack the quickness to play in Ob's system. Could be David Harrison without the crazy.

                              Joe Ingles 6-8 195 SF 1987

                              the lefty, aussie version of dunleavy. smart player, good offensive instincts, can shoot from range, deceptive quicks. needs to improve his lateral movement on defense, right handed ball handling and consistency on his shot.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                                Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                                Sounds like another version of IKE to me.
                                I was thinking the same thing. Maybe just a little bigger

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X