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

Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

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

  • Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

    http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=580002078

    In search of greatness, or at least very goodness
    By Conrad Brunner

    Apr 21, 2008
    Dozens of highly skilled, experienced professionals have spent the better part of the past year traveling around the globe to scout talent, assembling detailed reports on every facet of the skill sets of hundreds of prospects big, small and in-between, so that the Pacers will be fully prepared for the NBA Draft.

    Which is nice, but I watched quite a bit of the NCAA Tournament (not to dislocate a shoulder patting myself on the back, but I did have Davidson reaching the Sweet 16 in my bracket) and have spent several minutes on draft Websites and I've already got the thing pretty much figured out.

    Though the draft is a couple of months away, it's a very big deal indeed for the Pacers. Assuming they don't pull one of the top three picks from the lottery on May 20 (they have a 3 percent chance of one of the top three picks, less than 1 percent at No. 1 overall), they'll almost certainly be picking No. 11 in the first round and No. 41 in the second round.

    Which brings up what might be the biggest question of this offseason: is there any greatness available at No. 11 -- or anywhere else, for that matter?

    Though there are clearly identifiable needs, both from a positional and a skill-set standpoint, what the Pacers need more than anything else is a player with greatness. They have plenty of good young players to build around, most notably Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy. Granger is on the verge of stardom, but he's a few steps away from greatness.

    By greatness, I mean the ability to take over a game at either end, the skill to either get or create a shot under pressure, the professionalism to set an example for the rest of the team, the thoroughness of basketball savvy to be able to make his teammates better. The great player is the sun around which all others revolve.

    You know, the guys whose names always come up in the MVP discussion.

    The Pacers, then, have two options as it relates to their lottery pick. They can keep it, draft a young talent, give him time to develop and hope he rises to the elite level. Or they can treat it as a liquid asset and package the pick in a trade to acquire more immediate help.

    If they choose to keep it, I've already determined exactly who they should select. Given the stated needs of point guard and a big man – not to mention mental and physical toughness – and the nature of the prospects available, it seems the Pacers will be able to fill one need in the first round and the other in the second.

    SCENARIO ONE

    First round, Kevin Love, PF, UCLA – Love has the potential to develop into a very effective offensive force around the basket and has worked on extending his range. He's big, strong and tough and has a solid basketball IQ. The questions center on his athleticism and defensive.

    Second round, Lester Hudson, G, UT-Martin – A first-round talent who ranked third in the country in 3-pointers per game (10) and first in steals, Hudson has the size, strength and all-around game to be a second-round steal, even if he isn't a pure point guard. Really, how many pure college point guards make it in the NBA? Remember Phil Ford? There are red flags about his background but, in the second round, it's worth rolling the dice.

    SCENARIO TWO

    First round, Russell Westbrook, G, UCLA – If you're looking for defense at the point of attack, this is your guy. Westbrook has the look of a lockdown defender with excellent size and strength. He isn't a creator and needs work on his long-range shooting but is one of those guys that finds a way to fill up a lot of columns in the box score.

    Second round, D.J. White, PF, Indiana – Though perhaps a tad undersized for an NBA post player, White has the toughness and desire to make it work. If last season was an indicator, this is a guy willing to put in the work to improve his all-around game. The next step would be to improve his shooting range.

    There. I'm glad that's settled.
    ----------------------------
    Bruno didn't mention it, but it's possible we can also move backwards and pick at 12,13, or 14.

    Of course is very, very, unlikely we would pick at those spots because the teams behind us, who have less of a change than we do, would have to move into the top three. We probably have better odds of picking 1st than picking 13th or 14th. Bruno's right we will most certainly pick 11th and 41st.

    I like his scenarios, although I probably like #2 the best.

  • #2
    Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

    I would like either scenario (not thrilled that Hudson has a red flag, though), but the idea of shoring up our PG defense is very tempting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

      I have a feeling someone will reach on Love & Westbrook and they will be gone at 11. I think someone is going to fall into our lap that we did not expect. I just don't know who.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

        I'm starting to get on the Russell Westbrook bandwagon here on PD.

        I just think that he is the right guy. If you look at talent level and needs he is the guy for us. He has a strong character and work ethic. Mostly though he gives us something we haven't had since who knows, a big point guard who can defend.

        As far as i'm concerned DJ doesn't improve our defense and the bigs likely avaliable at 11 have some character question marks such as DeAndre Jordan.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

          I think the Pacers will trade #11, but who knows?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

            shoot, I REALLY want us to draft Westbrook if he is available, and if possible trade up to be able to get him...

            IMHO he is gonna be the closest to the next Jordan/Kobe/Lebron that the NBA is gonna see in awhile
            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

              Anyone else find it odd that Bruno ( aka Pacers mouthpiece ) mentions specific players that he wouldn't mind the Pacers drafting?

              I also agree with esabyrn333, I think that someone is going to reach for Kevin Love and pick him by the 7-9 spots. As for Westbrook......there is a chance he could get picked early as well....but not as likely as Kevin Love being drafted before the 10th pick.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                shoot, I REALLY want us to draft Westbrook if he is available, and if possible trade up to be able to get him...

                IMHO he is gonna be the closest to the next Jordan/Kobe/Lebron that the NBA is gonna see in awhile
                ummmmmmm no. He isn't/ More like Tayshaun Prince
                STARBURY

                08 and Beyond

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                  sorry , but Tayshaun prince isn't a monster on the dunks...


                  Westbrook is gonna be like an early , in his prime vince carter .. watch
                  "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                    D.J. has heart, the type of toughness that will make him better than Ike even though Ike has more talent. I hope he is there for us when we pick second.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                      If the Pacers take Love from UCLA, I might get sick. So he is the guy we get rewarded with for missing the playoffs. I'd rather lose to the Celtics by 30 in 4 straight games. Wow this draft must really be bad.

                      One thing to keep in mind over the years, a much greater % of busts and horrible picks were big men
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-22-2008, 09:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        If the Pacers take Love from UCLA, I might get sick. So he is the guy we get rewarded with for missing the playoffs. I'd rather lose to the Celtics by 30 in 4 straight games. Wow this draft must really be bad.

                        One thing to keep in mind over the years most a much, much greater % of busts and horrible picks were big men

                        Who would you take with the 11th pick then?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          One thing to keep in mind over the years most a much, much greater % of busts and horrible picks were big men
                          To be fair, that would be because a larger number of big men get picked higher than they probably should due to their rarity and because a larger number of big men get shoved into heavy service before they are probably ready. Makes it easier to get bad habits/nagging injury/bad reputation early in a career and show out as a bust or bad pick.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                            Regarding Hudson, Conrad didn't do any great research, he just listened to Jimmy's last radio show:

                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...5&postcount=55
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bruno’s Blog> In search of greatness

                              Originally posted by Vince Neil View Post
                              Who would you take with the 11th pick then?
                              I probably should stay out of the draft discussion, because I watch very litle college basketball. But I did see UCLA and Love didn't impress me at all and I think that is the type of player we don't need.

                              Pacers in general must get quicker

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X