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 Naptown_Seth View Post
    Redd - big 12 was strong, nearly pac 10 strong IMO.

    But this is not the only bad game DJ has had either, don't let people fool you. I've said many times in this thread that you ASSUME Augustin stops forcing his own offense when he gets to the NBA and has teammates, but you do not know he will (or can).
    Yeah...I watched about five Jayhawks games and Beasley a few times but that's it for the Big 12. This season was the least I've ever followed NCAA basketball since I was like 11. I'm always a little biased cause I enjoy the Big East style so much more than the rest of the college ranks, but this year I went from my normal 50% Big East/50% everything else to 70% Big East/30% everything else and that's with a smaller overall pie.

    On Augustin...I watched about 10 Texas games last year with Durant and althouh I thought he was pretty skilled, I never really liked him. That combined with the fact that I was a total ball-watcher (no jokes) in every game Durant played and it wasn't exactly the best way to get an accurate look at other guys. I was just assuming Augustin made the leap since I've heard so much about him, but again, I didn't realize he was so small. Maybe cause Durant was so big I just thought he was the an average-looking 6'1" bu next to KD's 18' wingspan. I've also seen nothing to make me think he's a long-term answer at the point. Overall...not impressed.

    I'll tell you who I am really impressed by though: CDR. Kid's gonna be a helluva scorer in the pros and he has that weird type of athleticism where he kinda hops around and slouches a little bit so he actually looks a little awkward and not athletic (like Tayshaun sorta) but in fact he almost just floats around out there and is uber-light on his feet like he never touches the ground. He can literally score in about eight different ways. Only question for me is range (his 3 pt % is silky, but I haven't ever seen him step back really) and his strength. Is he Tayshaun skinny but strong? Or Francisco Garcia skinny and get pushed around?

    I'd really like to see him on the Pacers.
    Last edited by JayRedd; 03-31-2008, 05:59 PM.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Rush showed his game perfectly too. He impacts off the ball, he's the go-to defender and after he got up to speed on Curry he did a much better job on him which helped down the stretch. He's very versitile. Despite his shooting slump he found his way in the 2nd.

      But he's also prone to being very passive. I suspect he shrinks from big time plays where he's the man. He likes the tension, but not as the focus it seems. He's not a pure anything, he's a handyman SG. Love him at 25 if you can get back in there.
      I said in another thread that if you can buy Brandon Rush for $3 million at the end of the first round, you do it. With attendance the way it is, I wonder how much more the Simons are willing to go into the red with the Pacers.

      My main knock on Rush is what you've mentioned: He just coasts from time to time. When he's on, he's on, and he's a top 20 prospect in my mind.

      We'll get to see Arthur vs. Hansbrough in the Final Four, which should prove to be interesting. And the guard matchups for Collison, Westbrook, Douglas-Roberts and Rose make for a good weekend.

      Comment


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

        I'm not sure Rush really has a true, NBA position. He can obviously
        play SG and would probably defend it pretty well, but his shot is
        way too inconsistent to be anything other than average offensively.
        Or, he could play SF where he'd be a bit small and struggle with
        some guys on the defensive end.

        Comment


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

          Just been announced: Both the Lopez sisters are declaring for the draft.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by d_c View Post
            Just been announced: Both the Lopez sisters are declaring for the draft.

            i'll take both

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              Just been announced: Both the Lopez sisters are declaring for the draft.
              I think it's great for the Pacers.

              Even if neither are picked by the Pacers, it adds big men depth to this draft. So it increases the chances of the Pacers getting a big they want, if they want one, IMO.

              Comment


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

                There are a lot of interesting center prospects in this draft. Given our needs, I really hope we pick one up somehow, but I think it should definatly be a defense oriented type of Center with good shot blocking ability.

                Does anyone think Robin Lopez will be a good pro? How about that Javale Mcgee guy... I have heard there are possible work ethic issues with deandre jordan, which tells me to steer clear. I still like thabeet quite a bit, Im really enamored with the shot-blocking and 70% FT percentage.

                Anyone who has watched any of these guys want to write up a nice little synopsis/ comparisons for me? Some of these doubts about Augistin are making me think we need to go big in this draft, if we wont be able to get a starter calibar PG.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


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

                  I can see why people like the potential in Jordan, but to me it's wide open and could go either way. He could really be a bust.

                  We had Jordan face Love straight up. He lost...badly. When a guy with his size isn't outplaying Love, at least scoring on him, then you have a concern. Love is a smart defender, but he's not a stopper. He simply minimizes his risks and fouls and let's the offensive player create his own miss rather than handing him the rim on a gamble or putting him on the line with a bailout.

                  Yet that was enough to shut down Jordan. That's where I like Arthur more, he's got some really nice post scoring moves.


                  It's odd that Robin is not more like Brook, but he's not. He could turn into a scrappy PF, but I'm surprised he's coming out. I think he could stand to play a year without his brother's shadow.

                  We'll get to see Arthur vs. Hansbrough in the Final Four, which should prove to be interesting. And the guard matchups for Collison, Westbrook, Douglas-Roberts and Rose make for a good weekend.
                  It's great isn't it. Normally so many of these guys are wide open and you've only seen them running a demo against guys headed nowhere. When you see Augustin-Rose you know that's a future NBA matchup and you can see that if you're the team with DJ you probably are bummed in those games.

                  I think CDR-Westbrook is a stalemate, both like to impact games off the ball and get their scoring in scraps. Collison is quick enough to leave Rose but Rose will remove his jumper and will be able to go inside on him at will.

                  The main challenge we get to see for Rose is can he protect his dribble from Collison. Collison pilfers at an NBA level, though he is a gambler (ala Armstrong).


                  Rush and Weaver are both guys with the ability to impact the SG spot but with enough holes in their games to become nothing. Still, seeing Cook tonight reminded me of what guys like Rush or Lee could be in the NBA.

                  I mean I think most of us talking about getting back in aren't talking about trading Danny for a 14 pick. The only reason JO gets used for a pick is because you are also getting the contract put into a better position (multiple players, expiring sooner, etc).

                  This draft won't fix the team. But with some care it should certainly improve the overall product next year as we wait out the now unavoidable rebuilding struggles.


                  Redd - you should have seen OK just for Griffin. Pretty damn smooth with the ball for a guy his size. He's not Beasley but he is interesting.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-31-2008, 11:17 PM.

                  Comment


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

                    We discussed him briefly below, but don't sleep on Blake Griffin. If
                    he comes out and his wheels are good to go, he may be the way
                    to go. Personally, given his combo of explosive athleticism,
                    competitive attitude and upside, I'd probably take him over
                    Love.

                    Comment


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

                      I was under the impression griffen wouldn't fall below the top 6 or 7, which kind of puts him out of our range.
                      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                      - ilive4sports

                      Comment


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

                        Javale McGee

                        http://youtube.com/watch?v=qJilDqw8JOY

                        Good movement, hands, touch for a big man, but what kind of competition has he faced so far and how's his REAL defense? Anyone caught any of his games this year that can shed some light on him?

                        Comment


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

                          Yeah, Griffin past 10 seems very unlikely. Of course declarations impact these mocks quite a bit.

                          Comment


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

                            I really like Tyler Hansborough and think we should take a good look at him if we end up drafting 15. I like his hustle & heart. I know we have Jeff Foster but we also had Dale & Antonio.

                            Comment


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

                              My thoughts on Love is that he might not be a franchise player, but I really do not think he will be anywhere near a bust. At worst he will be the top big man off of a playoff team roster. He might not be the type of player that scores ten straight buckets to lift your team out of a funk, but he will he will not be the type of player that will turnover the ball.

                              The negatives for Love are far less detrimental to a team than most of the young bigs in the draft.

                              Hans will have to bulk up to impress me. If he continues to shoot like he did vs. UL then I would consider it. He has a killer instinct that you can't teach. But I do not want to put to much stock in him just yet.

                              I want to see how he handles the Jayhawks defense first.

                              Comment


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

                                Here is my concern about Love.

                                Actually first let me say I don't believe he comes out this early, but that's JMO.

                                Anyway my concern or wonder is his defense. What i'm wondering is how much, if any, playing for UCLA covers up and defensive weaknesses he has? I mean playing with Westbrook, Collison, Mbah a Moute, and Shipp. UCLA is the best defensive team in the country. How much of his defense success is him and how much is playing on UCLA? I really have no idea.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X