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

Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

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

  • Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

    Interesting. BlueNGold posted this already, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

    http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Apasqf0...8607%26lang=en

    Ok, given. It's mediots... yahoo mediots even. But those are the five rookies discussed in the video.

    I haven't been paying attention to the preseason for teams other than Indy... are Rush and Hibby doing well enough to be mentioned ahead of the guys picked 3-10 ahead of them? Seems like Mayo/Love/Rudy might have gotten some love over Rush.

    Also, it was interesting that the analyst suspects that Rush will be "a better player" than Danny. That's interesting... I've only seen Rush for two games but he looked more like "future solid starter" than "future star" to me.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Anthem; 10-24-2008, 07:59 PM.
    This space for rent.

  • #2
    Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

    Adrian Wojnarowski is known as pretty knowledgable and credible when it comes to the NBA- at least to my knowledge...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

      where is MAYO. Has anyone been watching this kids stat line. He is going to be a GOOD player

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

        Well, I think it was Oden-Rose-Beasley and then the "sleeper rookies" were Rush and Hibbert. Mayo, being the 3rd pick, isn't sneaking up on anyone.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

          Originally posted by justinDOHMAN View Post
          where is MAYO. Has anyone been watching this kids stat line. He is going to be a GOOD player
          That is my feeling. Mayo is already lighting up the scoreboard. Rush and Hibbert are great, but Mayo is superstar material IMO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

            Ehh, whatever. All of those guys have looked pretty good in pre-season.

            I think all those guys mentioned will turn out to be good players. Rush should be a solid starter for years. I see a player somewhere between the magnitude of Raja Bell and Eddie Jones. It's still a little early too tell on Hibbert IMO, but I would lean towards saying that he'll also be a solid starter. I think the key for Hibbert in this league is conditioning. If he wants to be a 30+ mpg starter, he needs to get in better shape. He's already taken steps towards that. Good for him, but he still needs to do more.

            Rose should be a top tier PG in a few years. Won't be as good as Chris Paul, but will probably be right behind him. If he can stay healthy, I envision him as a young Steve Francis with better overall PG/playmaking ability.

            I see Beasley as a better rebounding, more athletic version of an early Glen Robinson, and that's not a bad thing.

            I think everything just depends on health for Oden. If he's healthy, he's going to be a dominant player on both ends of the court, but especially on defense. From what I've seen early on, this guy is a man child and already a big factor on both ends of the floor. His presence can't be measured in numbers. Opposing teams pretty much take him into account on every play, on every possession on both ends of the floor. You can just tell he's a factor, that other teams actually have to gameplan around him. There aren't a lot of those guys in this league.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              That is my feeling. Mayo is already lighting up the scoreboard. Rush and Hibbert are great, but Mayo is superstar material IMO.


              He should be lighting up the scoreboard. He plays enough minutes and takes certainly plenty of shots. For a rookie he has a lot of freedom but perhaps that's because he is playing for what was an awful team last season.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                Just wait until preseason is over then you will know for sure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                  What about the "better than Granger" part? Anybody who's actually watched him in a Pacers uni see that in his future?
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    What about the "better than Granger" part? Anybody who's actually watched him in a Pacers uni see that in his future?
                    Yes, Rush seems to be ahead of where Granger was and I may have mentioned that at some point...and he might get to about that level...but I will be surprised if Rush is ever truly better than Granger. Part of the reason is that Granger is already very good...and I see Granger getting even better from here. Also, I don't think most players improve to the same extent as Danny has since he started...so Rush has to climb quite a bit.

                    ...and some of this may be perception. We had more talent on the team when Granger started...and I believe Rush was a bit older than Granger coming into the league and played on a higher profile college team...and has simply more of an opportunity to shine.

                    The good news is, Rush is already better than his brother ever was....and should be much better.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                      Shawne Williams was better than Granger, wasn't he? I haven't seen enough of Rush to comment really, but this conversation seems eerily familiar.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                        Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                        Shawne Williams was better than Granger, wasn't he? I haven't seen enough of Rush to comment really, but this conversation seems eerily familiar.
                        It takes hard work in any profession to improve. This is related to character, personality and drive. Williams may never amount to anything unless he works at it. It's not like his talent level is off the charts like a Lebron, so he as well as Rush and Granger need to work to improve.

                        Rush appears to be more driven...so I expect he has a better shot. Williams may work hard, but he needs to learn how to work smart. I doubt that happens...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          Also, it was interesting that the analyst suspects that Rush will be "a better player" than Danny. That's interesting... I've only seen Rush for two games but he looked more like "future solid starter" than "future star" to me.

                          Thoughts?
                          Seems to me the perfect description for Granger "solid starter" "future star". When I think of Granger at this point I don't think star.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                            Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                            Seems to me the perfect description for Granger "solid starter" "future star". When I think of Granger at this point I don't think star.
                            Oh, I agree completely. I was thinking that the players better than Danny fall into the "future star" category.

                            Also, I notice and approve of your use of the phrase "at this point."
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Great rookies: Oden, Rose, Beasley, Hibbert, Rush?

                              FYI, Rose strained his hamstring last night and didn't play for the rest of the game. He says it's not serious.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X