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

Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Ok, I was a bit harsh on Westbrook. The indirect comparison with James White was unfair to a guy like Westbrook. I just want the Pacers to think skill before athleticism with this pick.

    We have Flip Murray and Quis Daniels coming off the bench already. Do we really need another combo guard? Is Westbrook really much different than a young, smaller Quis Daniels? Athletic, good defender, gets to the rim...but short on PG skills and not a SG? Sounds like Daniels to me.

    IMO, the last thing we need after another redundant SF is another combo guard. After Fred Jones, I am just pretty tired of seeing the Pacers pick up these guys who are never going to be good starters because they either do not have the right skills or are undersized.

    If I thought he was the best that would be available I would back off that position. However, I highly suspect there will be better players available. We could use Jordan Farmar or Rajon Rondo at PG about now don't you think?...

    So, IMO, we should go with a big or draft a real PG. No more games. No more multi-position players who can't play any position. Trade Ike so we don't have to re-sign him. Draft Love if he drops. Pick the best player available...
    Because of the significant flaws of the guards that will be available at 11 I really feel like
    a big is what will be taken. Love, Speights, McGee or if a player falls Gallinari or Gordon. I am not too keen on these last 2 either
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

      [QUOTE=BlueNGold;720198]We could use Jordan Farmar or Rajon Rondo at PG about now don't you think?...

      QUOTE]

      I certainly agree about wishing we had Rondo. Of course I actually believe Westbrook is a slightly less athletic, slightly more polished version of Rondo coming out of Kentucky. Let's remember that Westbrook started the first few games of the season at PG and actually led the team in assits for the year. Coach Howland has been quoted as saying Westbrook would be the starting PG next year if he stayed and Collison went to the NBA. Like Rondo, I don't believe Westbrook will ever be a Jason Kidd, Mark Jackson, or John Stockton type "quarterback". I do believe he has the ability to defend the position at a high level, be disciplined enough to play within his offensive abilities, and get his team into it's offensive set. And he's already a better shooter than Rondo was.

      It's hard to argue who the Pacers should take without knowing their plans for the rest of the team. Possibly having either Love or Augustine playing with Murphy, Dunleavy, Diogu, and Diener in the rotation scares the *!#@ out of me. Not to mention Tinsley or possibly Flip. IMO, this teams biggest weakness is perimeter defense and the ability to create off the dribble. Westbrook addresses both needs and when combined with Dun, DG, and JO forms a solid core to build from.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

        Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
        I forget exactly, but wasn't Ron Harper at least 6-6, if not 6-7 ?
        Yes, and he had very long arms. A great defender and a legitimate NBA SG. He was part of...I believe 5 championship teams. 3 in Chicago and 2 in LA. In addition, he could definitely score from both inside and out. He was largely overshadowed by MJ and Kobe on those teams...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

          Originally posted by owl View Post
          Because of the significant flaws of the guards that will be available at 11 I really feel like
          a big is what will be taken. Love, Speights, McGee or if a player falls Gallinari or Gordon. I am not too keen on these last 2 either
          I think anyone taken at 11 will have significant question marks. McGee and Gordon probably have more questions than the others, but all have them. I'm a big proponent of taking who you believe will eventually be the best player - as long as he isn't another SF. I don't care who has the quickest short term impact.

          I'd take Speights before Westbrook. I'm intrigued by McGee but have honestly only seen highlights and read scouting reports. I'd rather have Westbrook than either Love or Gallinari. Gallinari because of position, Love because I believe Westbrook has a higher ceiling and fits a more immediate need. I'm torn on Gordon. He is the ultimate boom or bust player. He doesn't address the Pacers primary need - perimeter D. He also wouldn't work well with Dun and Granger, but his potential would be hard to pass up at 11.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

            My fear with Westbrook is, while he will improve with age, he's a guy that's gonna have to bounce around the league a while before he really finds a team that fits, like Raja Bell, like Antonio Daniels. If he ends up at that level or better, great, but I wouldn't want to be the team that sits through his growing pains only to see him make it elsewhere.

            Yes, it'd be great to get his D. And, same as Augustin, one hopes TPTB wouldn't bill him as our PG savior. I just don't have a good feeling about him. But then, I don't necessarily have a good feeling about anybody that'll likely still be available at 11.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

              Originally posted by eldubious View Post
              Ron Harper was an ingenoius comparison to Westbrook, Harper was an allstar caliber player with the Clippers and Westbrook has the same potential. Although on the downside, he reminds me of Antonio Daniels, atheletic enough to play PG, but not skilled enough to play it effectively. It all depends on his ability to prove to GMs he can play point, his workouts can take him high as 6th or as late as 17th.
              You know I was reading this thread and Antonio Daniels was the guy who came to my mind when comparing Westbrook.

              I think that Westbrook will turn out to be a solid NBA pro. He has the size, athletic ability, and work ethic to make it happen. I'm not saying I think he is all star material because truth be told I don't. But I do see him as the best prospect for the Pacers. Right now I would have too many question marks for any other player we could take.

              No Westbrook is not the savior at point guard. I would not bet on any possible prospect being the Pacers savior. But if he can develope into a solid role player i'd take that. Maybe a 6th man of the year type of player. Don't undervalue these types of players. Sure we could take say DeAndre Jordan and hope he developes in a star he could be but well that probably isn't a safe bet.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                I like Batum more than Russell Westbrook.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Ok, I was a bit harsh on Westbrook. The indirect comparison with James White was unfair to a guy like Westbrook. I just want the Pacers to think skill before athleticism with this pick.

                  We have Flip Murray and Quis Daniels coming off the bench already. Do we really need another combo guard? Is Westbrook really much different than a young, smaller Quis Daniels? Athletic, good defender, gets to the rim...but short on PG skills and not a SG? Sounds like Daniels to me.

                  IMO, the last thing we need after another redundant SF is another combo guard. After Fred Jones, I am just pretty tired of seeing the Pacers pick up these guys who are never going to be good starters because they either do not have the right skills or are undersized.

                  If I thought he was the best that would be available I would back off that position. However, I highly suspect there will be better players available. We could use Jordan Farmar or Rajon Rondo at PG about now don't you think?...

                  So, IMO, we should go with a big or draft a real PG. No more games. No more multi-position players who can't play any position. Trade Ike so we don't have to re-sign him. Draft Love if he drops. Pick the best player available...

                  The difference is Westbrook is an elite defender which this team desperately needs. Also he seems like a a very hard worker so he could possibly develop more point guard skills eventually.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                    T'bird, basically exactly how I've felt about him this year too. I don't think we've disagreed on a player yet.
                    I've heard people say Fred Jones, but I don't agree with that at all. Westbrook is alot more of a cerebral player than Fred, and I think has more long term upside.
                    I say Fred all the time, but I agree with this. Primarily the Fred discussion is in terms of PG translation and type of physical game he brings. Fred, and Raja which is an interesting comparison too, both have shown a better deep ball. That's my ONLY concern with him at the 2.

                    Too small, not a problem with his hops and nose for the ball. As you say T'bird, the kid is a play maker. Every loose ball off of rebounds he's on top of, every odd play where quickness and instincts are needed he gets in the middle of, he makes the unplanned things go your team's way.

                    What he doesn't do is read the court like a PG or really show any advanced passing handles that a solid starting PG normally brings. He isn't slinging the rock off a chain, drilling hard bouncers through traffic for the backdoor cut layup, and certainly not going behind the back or through a defenders legs.

                    I've said all along I'll take him. I think Love is the more cerebral of the two, but he's pretty sharp. I don't think EJ, Westbrook or Love fall to 11 though.

                    I guess my answer would depend on what other moves I thought I could make, both on draft night and in free agency later in the summer. For example, if I thought I could acquire another wing defender in free agency or in a small trade, I'd probably take Love. Guys I've mentioned before might be a better fit that Westbrook might be Aaron Afflalo of Detroit and Quinton Ross of the Clippers. There are a couple of other good defensive wings in this draft too who may be available in the late first round. If I thought I could obtain a late first rounder somehow and add someone like Kyle Weaver with that pick, going with Love at #11 would be the way to go.

                    On the other hand, I think a wing defender is a bigger "need" for us than an additional big is. If I thought I could add a big guy to get me by later in the draft or as a cheap free agent, I might take Westbrook instead and forego signing the more expensive Ross or someone similar.
                    Yep. This is why I worry about Bird because this year is extremely tough, lots of variables and hard calls possibly. You can trade Dun to get back in the first, go get W'Brook and bring him up at the 2. Tough year for a rookie, who cares, this season is dead man walking anyway (it would appear). But maybe Dun gets you Rush, Lee, etc and you go Love now.

                    And I really like Weaver but only as a defensive specialist who you hope can stick around for 6-7 years in the league. Hate to go 25th area on him but early 2nd round? That would be nice. Weaver's not W'brook on offense/hops, but he gets after it and handles it well enough to stay on the floor.
                    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-19-2008, 03:44 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                      Am I the only one not optimistic about either Russell Westbrook or Augustin? I think Westbrook will end up somewhere between Antonio Daniels and Keyon Dooling. If we don't move up in the lottery I would trade down and take Ty Lawson in the 20s.
                      basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Russell Westbrook

                        It'd be nice to trade down, but we'd still have to find someone willing to trade up.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X