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

Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

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

  • #16
    Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

    You want highlights try this instead of 'brook dunking on a guy that should have had the charge taken.

    Love, taking it out of the net on a make, 2 hand chest pass instant fastbreak. You don't need to run to be part of a running game...






    BTW, he did this EVERY game I saw him play.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

      Everytime I see Russell Westbrook -I see Fred Jones -- sorry that doesn't thrill me at all.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        You want highlights try this instead of 'brook dunking on a guy that should have had the charge taken.

        Love, taking it out of the net on a make, 2 hand chest pass instant fastbreak. You don't need to run to be part of a running game...






        BTW, he did this EVERY game I saw him play.
        yup, that's about how westbrook scored half of his baskets...only if love were a 7 footer. no question he'd be the #1 pick in the draft and would probably go down as an all-time great. 6'8 1/2" without shoes does scare me. again, if i HAD to chose between love, westbrook, and augustin at #11, i'd take love. if we came out of this draft with love, walker, and lawson, i'd be happy...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

          One more, Weaver pulls a Prince and runs down Westbrook. Weaver plays a little wing point and is a monster defender, and can be had in the late first or maybe even early 2nd. He's also got a really solid family situation and work ethic that puts him in line with Augustin somewhat. Wingspan is probably an issue, as is consistent offense, but he does give you a lot of what you want from Westbrook for a lot cheaper.



          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-03-2008, 01:13 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

            6'8 1/2" without shoes does scare me
            As I keep saying, Love scores from below the shoulders already, he pushes off, steps away or just gets things up quick. This is why I compare him to McHale. Watch the YouTube of Love's output vs Oregon and compare to the McHale footage ESPN Classic is running for the BOS/LAL series.

            It's very similar in a "he got stats doing it THAT way" style. He didn't use height or speed at UCLA to have success, so it doesn't bother me that he won't have those to lean on in the NBA either.

            I actually worry more when I see the Westbrook leaner dunk on a guy almost taking a charge because at the next level I don't think he gets that play. However I think Westbrook is great in the loose ball/improv situations so I still like him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

              naptown - but do you really believe that style can translate to the nba? i'm not sure i can name you one successful big man with love's size, body type, and athleticism in the nba right now...he could be THE exception, but it'd definitely be a risk hoping he is.

              i still don't understand the infatuation with westbrook. it seems those who watched him extensively at ucla, are a little down on him. those going by the scouting reports and camp results are obsessed with him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                i still don't understand the infatuation with westbrook. it seems those who watched him extensively at ucla, are a little down on him. those going by the scouting reports and camp results are obsessed with him.
                I rate Westbrook highly for the Pacers.

                He is big, athletic, capable of defending, hard worker, coachable, teamplayer, etc. He is a fairly safe pick. Compared to the bigs like McGee, Jordan they have some serious question marks. There is really no safe big man to take in this draft aside from Michael Beasley.

                I'm not someone who is obsessed with Westbrook by any means. But I do like him as a prospect. I also don't expect him to be a top player. I always like to think of him to be similar to Antonio Daniels.

                If Pacers want a home run type of pick they better move up to get Eric Gordon or look at DJ Augistin (better chance of being a star than Westbrook IMO) or look at maybe Donte Greene or one of the big guys.

                Westbrook, IMO, is a safe pick.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                  Originally posted by rommie View Post
                  I rate Westbrook highly for the Pacers.

                  He is big, athletic, capable of defending, hard worker, coachable, teamplayer, etc. He is a fairly safe pick. Compared to the bigs like McGee, Jordan they have some serious question marks. There is really no safe big man to take in this draft aside from Michael Beasley.

                  I'm not someone who is obsessed with Westbrook by any means. But I do like him as a prospect. I also don't expect him to be a top player. I always like to think of him to be similar to Antonio Daniels.

                  If Pacers want a home run type of pick they better move up to get Eric Gordon or look at DJ Augistin (better chance of being a star than Westbrook IMO) or look at maybe Donte Greene or one of the big guys.

                  Westbrook, IMO, is a safe pick.
                  If the Pacers take Donte Greene, I will beat the crap out of anyone and anything in sight. He is the most overrated player projected to go in the top 20. Terrible shot selection, bad attitude, not NBA ready at all. And I'm a Syracuse fan.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                    Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                    Lopez is slipping a lot. He was projected to go around 3 a few months ago. I hope he keeps dropping, I would rather have him than a PG
                    That would be great... not sure it will happen, but the dude is dropping. Not a flashy pick, but more than solid at #11.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                      Originally posted by rommie View Post
                      He is big, athletic, capable of defending, hard worker, coachable, teamplayer, etc. He is a fairly safe pick. Compared to the bigs like McGee, Jordan they have some serious question marks. There is really no safe big man to take in this draft aside from Michael Beasley.

                      I'm not someone who is obsessed with Westbrook by any means. But I do like him as a prospect. I also don't expect him to be a top player. I always like to think of him to be similar to Antonio Daniels.

                      If Pacers want a home run type of pick they better move up to get Eric Gordon or look at DJ Augistin (better chance of being a star than Westbrook IMO) or look at maybe Donte Greene or one of the big guys.

                      Westbrook, IMO, is a safe pick.
                      what do you mean by westbrook being big? westbrook is indeed a hard worker, coachable, and a team player, but even as a defender, i don't see him able to guard anything other than opposing teams' pgs. much too small to guard sgs imo. as prospects, i'd say rondo was a much better prospect and he fell to the 20s.

                      but yes, really any time you have a hard worker like westbrook they are ultimately safe picks and tend to improve through the years. this is the reason i like joe alexander so much. the pacers need the fire and intensity they've lacked since ron was here. if we do indeed draft westbrook, hopefully he can bring that. for that same reason, i don't like ej. ej just has never been disciplined off the court, almost never shows any sort of fire (typical of most indiana high schoolers), and just doesn't have that great of a work ethic.

                      i crave for that competitve spirit in players. guys who i've seen with the passion and work ethic you speak of imo are (in order): oj mayo, joe alexander, russell westbrook, derrick rose, anthony randolph, kevin love, jerryd bayless and then the drop off...

                      i'd say you are correct about the bigs. the bigs in this draft have potential, but there really is no safe pick there. the safest bigs would probably be jason thompson and joey dorsey ("safe" lol) based on where they're likely to be drafted and their potential roles on the teams who draft them.
                      Last edited by croz24; 06-03-2008, 01:54 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                        I'm pretty lukewarm on Westbrook. But I believe he's 6-3 or so and
                        'plays' at about 6-5 with his length. Wether he can develop the
                        necessary PG instincts/skills is anybody's guess and probably pretty
                        questionable. He hasn't played enough period, let alone at PG,
                        for anyone to have a clue. If he can't, his ability to defend PG's
                        will be of little to no use.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                          Originally posted by Shade View Post
                          Augustin at #6? Really?
                          No, not really - but it's Chad Ford. Walsh has been around long enough to know how tough it is for a small PG to be a star. Augustin COULD be that guy but it's a long shot.

                          What I hope he's done is looked at players he might get at 6 and decided which players are worth taking with that and what situation means trading the pick. Personally, I'd be OK with Randolph or Mayo there but if we get lower on my list I'd say he could trade it for a later first.

                          And I still say we need to trade into a late first and nab Chalmers, even if we take Augustin/Westbrook at #11. In fact, especially if we take Westbrook, because he's more of a SG anyway.
                          I think the same holds true for Indy. If there isn't a PG worth taking at 11, trade down to 19-22 and take a SG. Most of the guys I have pegged to go from 12-20 - the best athletes - are SF's. Trade down and take CDR or someone else. Or take a shot at someone like Jordan but you better be patient.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            One more, Weaver pulls a Prince and runs down Westbrook. Weaver plays a little wing point and is a monster defender, and can be had in the late first or maybe even early 2nd. He's also got a really solid family situation and work ethic that puts him in line with Augustin somewhat. Wingspan is probably an issue, as is consistent offense, but he does give you a lot of what you want from Westbrook for a lot cheaper.


                            &nbsp
                            Yeah, I'd be absolutely delighted if we could somehow land Weaver. Just bring him off the bench as a situational defender to start. Maybe he develops a little more offensive game but that's gravy. Heavy cheese factor on the music in that clip.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                              I'm still lukewarm as well regarding Westbrook. Limited offense, size of a PG, but isn't a PG, yet plays good D. Not enough there on the surface to entice me. Seems like Rondo was more interesting as a rookie than he might be, unless he shows more.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chad Ford - Mock Draft 3.0

                                Hmm...I would really like CDR, I think. I'd be happy if we walked away from this draft with him. I still don't get why he is so low. What's so funny is that even Ford seems fairly sure that he could start on a contending team, like the Hornets. I guess a solid starter is nothing special in the draft.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X