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...

    Any one have access to Chad Ford's Mock Draft?

    About his comments regarding Mayo.....if all he is good for is scoring...then I pass.
    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 intridcold View Post
      For me I think what needs to happen is fan support needs to get better. In order for that to happen the enviroment has to change. Would the results of Thabeet be better than getting into the second round of the playoffs? Getting into the second round may be a stretch, but not any more of a stretch than a Thabeet saving our franchise.
      I'm confused....are you talking about getting into the 2nd round of this years' playoffs?

      IMHO...I can hope that we somehow draft a player that can be a Franchise player....but I'm not expecting anything more then getting a player that will fix one of the many weaknesses that this team has.

      Whoever we draft ( assuming that we don't do something stupid like drafting Bantum or Gallinari ) will likely be talented enough to help us get better for the long-term. If we draft Thabeet.....I know that he maybe a project and that he won't be a Franchise saver....but I know that he will likely fix one of the huge holes that we have right now in our Frontcourt.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


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

        Damn, Russell Westbrook sure sounds interesting for us. I hadn't really heard the name until recently, I don't know much about him.

        His numbers don't look bad at all. Both his 4.8 apg and his 1.78 a/to ratio is better than what Bayless or Rose is putting up. Good fg%, decent 3%. Very good size (6'3" 189) and looks like an athletic freak. If we're picking in the 8-10 range and the top prospects are gone, I'd have no problem going with this guy.

        Last edited by Kofi; 02-28-2008, 08:04 PM.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Kofi View Post
          Damn, Russell Westbrook sure sounds interesting for us. I hadn't really heard the name until recently, I don't know much about him.

          His numbers don't look bad at all. Both his 4.8 apg and his 1.78 a/to ratio is better than what Bayless or Rose is putting up. Good fg%, decent 3%. Very good size (6'3" 189) and looks like an athletic freak. If we're picking in the 8-10 range and the top prospects are gone, I'd have no problem going with this guy.






          Yeah I hadn't really heard of him either. I think I recall him a little vs. IU last year in tourney.

          I see a few of the mocks have us selecting him. Not sure what's he about, since I don't get to watch the Pac 10 often.

          I thought UCLA started Collison and Shipp at the guard positions? Is he even a starter?

          Part of me wants us to get Dj Augustine. Not sure how good he'll be, but watching Durant, Aldridge, Gibson and Tj Ford makes picking a Longhorn look like a good idea

          Comment


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

            I haven't given him much thought but after researching I gotta say sign me up for the russell westbrook bandwagon.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Any one have access to Chad Ford's Mock Draft?

              It's next week.

              Comment


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

                Beasley is getting to be a lock for #1 pick. But if we can keep the momentum and continue moving down, the guy I'd LOVE to get now that I've seen more of him is Jerrod Bayless. He's obviously not there yet, but he's looking a lot like a cross of the two best young point guards in the world, Chris Paul and Deron Williams. Great athleticism and scoring ability a la Paul and the tools to be a solid lockdown defender like Williams. And I still think Mayo will be a solid pro.

                Comment


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

                  if we are going to base a player's ability on statistics, i could name you 50+ players in college right now with better stats than westbrook...i think we ought to make a rule that you may only comment on a prospect who you've watched play at least twice (and even that's not a high number)...

                  Comment


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

                    http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/...draftyear=2008

                    O.J. Mayo Draft Bio

                    O.J. Mayo
                    Shooting Guard (Rank: #10) | 6-4, 195 | Age: 20
                    USC (Freshman)
                    Hometown: Huntington, W.V.

                    Draft Projection: Top 10

                    Similarities:

                    Notes: Averaged 29.6 points, 5.0 rebounds and 4.9 assists as a high school senior.

                    Positives: Big-time combo guard with excellent size, scoring ability and handle. Excellent penetrator with quick first step. Good finisher around the basket. Has deep range on his jump shot, but streaky. NBA-ready body. Excellent strength.

                    Negatives: Lacks a developed midrange game. Doesn't always show up on the defensive end. Has been pegged by scouts as a potential point guard, but seems to lack the decision making skills or feel to run the point. Has had some off-court issues. Teams worry that his ego is overinflated with all of the hype since eighth grade. A year older than everyone else in his class.

                    Summary: Mayo is having a solid USC, but scouts are still trying to figure out what he actually is. It's clear he's going to be a great NBA scorer ... but will he give a team anything else?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      if we are going to base a player's ability on statistics, i could name you 50+ players in college right now with better stats than westbrook...i think we ought to make a rule that you may only comment on a prospect who you've watched play at least twice (and even that's not a high number)...
                      Westbrook is doing it in America's toughest conference, the Pac-10, as a sophomore. He also has above average NBA size and way above average NBA athleticism, which is why scouts think he could be just as good and eventually better in the NBA. That's what separates him from the second round, future Euroleaguers like Sean Singletary, Jamont "Turnover" Gordon etc..

                      Comment


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

                        Re: Westbrook - See post #232 in this thread.

                        Anyway, half-kidding, self-administered atta-boys aside, I'm
                        encouraged that Ford's contacts also love Westbrook. If the
                        Pacers can just keep from screwing things up and secure a
                        draft slot in the #7-9 range, one of EJ, Bayless or Westbrook
                        should still be on the board. Or, worst case, they shouldn't
                        have to move up more than a slot or two to get one of them.

                        Comment


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

                          Any chance we could aquire a middle or late first rounder for Shawne or move up 2 or 3 spots with our own pick? Especially if we sideline him for say 5 games and then play him extensively (i.o. "showcase" him) fro the remainder of the season?
                          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                            Westbrook is doing it in America's toughest conference, the Pac-10, as a sophomore. He also has above average NBA size and way above average NBA athleticism, which is why scouts think he could be just as good and eventually better in the NBA. That's what separates him from the second round, future Euroleaguers like Sean Singletary, Jamont "Turnover" Gordon etc..
                            and you've seen him play how many times...? i did not bring up singletary in my post, i just find it funny that people on here on suddenly raving about a kid just because nbadraft.net had him going top or based on his statistics. westbrook has one year of scoring 12ppg and pders are enamored with him. for those who HAVE seen him play understand he is NOT a pg. which means he is a 6'3 SG. he has athleticism sure, but he is a product of the talent around him and does not have the shooting or overall game to be a sg in the nba. roderick wilmont was a better player than westbrook.
                            Last edited by croz24; 02-29-2008, 02:14 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                              and you've seen him play how many times...? i did not bring up singletary in my post, i just find it funny that people on here on suddenly raving about a kid just because nbadraft.net had him going top or based on his statistics. westbrook has one year of scoring 12ppg and pders are enamored with him. for those who HAVE seen him play understand he is NOT a pg. which means he is a 6'3 SG. he has athleticism sure, but he is a product of the talent around him and does not have the shooting or overall game to be a sg in the nba. roderick wilmont was a better player than westbrook.
                              I've seen him play once and I liked what I saw but that being said im not really so interested in him for his numbers at UCLA. The kid looks like he has the physical tools to be a great on ball defender and scorer at the next level. I really think his best atribute is his athleticism. If he works on his ball handling some more I see no reason why he couldn't become a great point guard.

                              Comment


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

                                that's fine but mr. westbrook is NOT a pg and will not be tall or strong enough to be a decent sg in the nba...westbrook is the kind of guy you take a chance on late in the 1st...just don't waste a top 10 pick on him...especially since this is the 1st year he's ever received any sort of accolades for his play...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X