Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

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

  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    Originally posted by intridcold View Post
    If we get a 8-11 pick and Monroe is off the board, go for Teague. He is lightening quick and a difference maker on both sides of the ball. He is a Point Guard at Wake Forest what else do you need to know.
    He's also a local kid for those interested in that sort of thing.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Holy crap, get the F'bomb out of this draft ASAP!

      Actually I need to watch some of the games from SAT off Tivo, but I did catch James Harden in what was on paper a great game for him in coming back vs UCLA. If he's the #5 pick then get out of this draft. He was Mateen Cleeves reborn. He's a roughly physically strong SG by college standards, but his moves are way too limited (he repeats 2-3 go-to moves) and slow for NBA SG duties.

      The Cleeves thing is that you can see why he is an NCAA winner/leader, but also why that's just not going to translate well to the next level. It was my first serious look at him so another time might change my mind I suppose.


      Collison - I thought he was a ball hog, overdribbler, call-his-own-number Best type last season. Who knew he could take that crap to another level. Without clearly superior options like Westbrook and Love on the court with him he's gotten even more hoggy with the ball and cost UCLA the game down the stretch by forcing his own shot. Stay far away from him despite his quickness, his application of skills is really poor and hasn't improved at all this season over last. If the Pacers draft him I'll puke. Then I'll buy a Best jersey and burn it in effigy.

      Holiday - might be great, who knows, Collison never gave him the ball. To me it looked like Jrue would be better off waiting one season, but this draft is so weak that he still projects top 10 even though he does not look ready.

      I caught Patrick Patterson last week and meh. He had a touch of Dale Davis to him...if Dale could easily be moved off his rebounding spot constantly. His utter lack of power despite his Dale-esque game bothered me quite a bit, and more so since his "power" is considered his main asset. He seems more Baston to me right now sans the Euro smarts.


      At this point I'm only interested in Griffin and Thabeet, and perhaps a risk on Jennings despite his lackluster numbers in Europe. I'm assuming Rubio won't come out this year since that's been the buzz.

      I've got the Pitt/L'ville and the G'town/Duke games on Tivo to watch. Looks like Blair and Clark had lackluster outings, Singler mostly grabbed boards, and Monroe was only modestly involved, so I'm not expecting to see much in either of these. I'd like to get a look at Patrick Mills in game action at some point (can't remember his Olympics unfortunately).



      The bad thing is that most scouts/GMs now realize the weakness in this draft and are probably devaluing picks already.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        I watched Teague for a little while last night and didn't come away too impressed. There are certainly some things he does well, but he's got a long way to go before he's ready to be an NBA PG.

        He shoots well and has very good range, but his jumper looks a little bit like Troy Murphy's. It's very flat and slow with a low release point. That doesn't pose a problem for a 6'11" guy like Murphy, but for a 6'2" combo guard, it could be a pretty significant issue.

        I watched about half the game, and during the time I watched he showed absolutely no midrange game. He also showed no propensity for pulling up for a jumper off the dribble. Everything he did was either a catch and shoot (from a stand still, not a curl or a screen) or a drive all the way to the bucket. Once he got to the bucket he reminded me a little bit of the bad version of TJ Ford. He didn't finish all that well and couldn't really find his teammates. They actually looked like a better team when Teague was playing off the ball and they had another PG on the floor.

        I didn't notice much about his defense. He seemed to play adequately enough to not really affect the game in either a positive or negative way.

        I realize this might have been one of his worst games of the year, but I don't see him as a top 10 pick. He's definitely got the quickness and shooting ability to succeed in the NBA, but I think he'll be more of a project than either Rose or Westbrook. I can't see him being an effective starter in the NBA before year 3 if he comes out after this season.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Holliday reminds me of a real green Stuckey. Stuckey sucks though

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

            I've got the Pitt/L'ville and the G'town/Duke games on Tivo to watch. Looks like Blair and Clark had lackluster outings, Singler mostly grabbed boards, and Monroe was only modestly involved, so I'm not expecting to see much in either of these.
            I didn't see the G'town/Duke game but in the few Duke games I've seen Gerald Henderson has been far and away the best player on the court. Granted he's another wing which the Pacers should have little interest in but if you watch the game tell me what you think of him.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              the best possible guy the pacers can get next to blake griffin is without a doubt ricky rubio, he is gonna be better than all the other spaniards ever in the nba. people are gonna be more interested in the pacers from around the world and here too. his selling power I would guess would be huge. pacers would make a lot of money of him, think of all the jerseys he would sell.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Holy crap, get the F'bomb out of this draft ASAP!

                Actually I need to watch some of the games from SAT off Tivo, but I did catch James Harden in what was on paper a great game for him in coming back vs UCLA. If he's the #5 pick then get out of this draft. He was Mateen Cleeves reborn. He's a roughly physically strong SG by college standards, but his moves are way too limited (he repeats 2-3 go-to moves) and slow for NBA SG duties.

                The Cleeves thing is that you can see why he is an NCAA winner/leader, but also why that's just not going to translate well to the next level. It was my first serious look at him so another time might change my mind I suppose.
                your harden/cleaves comparison isn't even remotely accurate, even in a 1st look. harden was a borderline top 5 pick last year and nearly a lock for the top 3 this year. as far as ability, harden is imo the most gifted player in the upcoming draft. a wade/van exel comparison would have been more appropriate.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  I would say Roy without the tangibles.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                    I would say Roy without the tangibles.
                    roy was never the outside shooter harden is

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      I didn't see the G'town/Duke game but in the few Duke games I've seen Gerald Henderson has been far and away the best player on the court. Granted he's another wing which the Pacers should have little interest in but if you watch the game tell me what you think of him.
                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      I didn't see the G'town/Duke game but in the few Duke games I've seen Gerald Henderson has been far and away the best player on the court. Granted he's another wing which the Pacers should have little interest in but if you watch the game tell me what you think of him.
                      I got to see just a bit of Duke so far and he (Henderson) has been the standout athlete. I was tracking them for Singler but so far I haven't seen much from him. Neither probably really addresses the Pacers needs.


                      I need to watch the 2nd half of that UConn/Vill game but I concerned about where Thabeet is. His preconference had him looking so improved, but now it appears to be in big part due to the competition. He's definitely back down to earth and looking really raw. I was excited back in DEC because I thought he'd found that next level and would be a nice power guy next to Hibbert, not so sure now.

                      AJ Price is back up to his old tricks that had me liking him last year, at least in this game. He got hot just around this time last year but then faded. He's not a top 10, but in the 20's I'd draft him for sure. I think you can count on him to be what you expect more than Thabeet, but obviously without the upside.

                      He's a little bit like Diener in his scoring style and ball control passing. He does have a few niftier passes in his bag than Travis does however.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        your harden/cleaves comparison isn't even remotely accurate, even in a 1st look. harden was a borderline top 5 pick last year and nearly a lock for the top 3 this year. as far as ability, harden is imo the most gifted player in the upcoming draft. a wade/van exel comparison would have been more appropriate.
                        We'll see. No pre-draft had him listed as a top 10 last year because that's how I made my "too watch" list, and I looked at several. Now maybe they all just dismissed him as coming out this year but that still contradicts your statement (hyperbole).

                        Top 5 last year were basically (going into season, not at the end where Harden 100% wasn't top 10) - Rose, Beasley, Gordon, Mayo, Bayless, Brook Lopez, Gallinari, Griffin and Batum perhaps (who fell like a rock during the NCAA season). Westbrook was not, Love was not, Alexander was not, Rush was not and Harden certainly was not.

                        I said I need to see more of him, but I don't even see how Wade and Van Exel compare to each other in the least. Wade is a power guy, quick first step to drive the lane and Nick was a speed/slash and jump shooter type. I will give you that Harden appears physical like Wade, but not with his quickness.

                        I definitely didn't see anything making him better than Griffin, who has been ridiculous so far.


                        He is set to be a top 5 right now, but so is Thabeet and as I said Thabeet isn't impressing me lately. His "development" from last year is looking like a mirage now.

                        If you love Harden and/or love this draft and love the Pacers getting a top 5 pick in it, so be it. Right now I'm not seeing it. Most of the guys that returned from possible first round status have been big duds this year. Griffin is about the only returning guy making strides. But Collison, Lawson, Budinger, Clark and even Thabeet all look a bit too much like what they were last year, and these were the guys that would have made this draft at least reasonably deep.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Okay...since most you are paying attention to the 2009 draft....assuming WORST-CASE scenario we end up with yet another 11-14th pick.....assuming that the Best Player available does fill a position of need ( as in PG or PF/C ).....whose out there that can make an impact?

                          Since I think that the need is greater at the Big Man rotation ( for interior defense ), are there any PF/C that isn't totally inept on the offensive end, can impact the Defensive end ( most notably with shotblocking and rebounding ) and be available at the 11 to 14th spot that has the necessary Basketball IQ to operate in JO'Bs defense?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            We'll see. No pre-draft had him listed as a top 10 last year because that's how I made my "too watch" list, and I looked at several. Now maybe they all just dismissed him as coming out this year but that still contradicts your statement (hyperbole).

                            Top 5 last year were basically (going into season, not at the end where Harden 100% wasn't top 10) - Rose, Beasley, Gordon, Mayo, Bayless, Brook Lopez, Gallinari, Griffin and Batum perhaps (who fell like a rock during the NCAA season). Westbrook was not, Love was not, Alexander was not, Rush was not and Harden certainly was not.

                            I said I need to see more of him, but I don't even see how Wade and Van Exel compare to each other in the least. Wade is a power guy, quick first step to drive the lane and Nick was a speed/slash and jump shooter type. I will give you that Harden appears physical like Wade, but not with his quickness.

                            I definitely didn't see anything making him better than Griffin, who has been ridiculous so far.


                            He is set to be a top 5 right now, but so is Thabeet and as I said Thabeet isn't impressing me lately. His "development" from last year is looking like a mirage now.

                            If you love Harden and/or love this draft and love the Pacers getting a top 5 pick in it, so be it. Right now I'm not seeing it. Most of the guys that returned from possible first round status have been big duds this year. Griffin is about the only returning guy making strides. But Collison, Lawson, Budinger, Clark and even Thabeet all look a bit too much like what they were last year, and these were the guys that would have made this draft at least reasonably deep.



                            I happen to think Clark looks great. Very unselfish. Lawson is also much improved. How have you not noticed the dramatic jump in shooting percentage?

                            SEASON MIN PTS REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF FG% FT% 3P% PPS
                            2007-2008 25.3 12.7 2.7 5.2 2.2 2.36 1.6 .0 1.8 .515 .835 .361 1.49
                            2008-2009 27.3 14.9 2.4 6.7 1.8 3.74 2.4 .2 1.6 .531 .772 .473 1.62


                            Oh and Seth, how bout my man Russell Westbrook?... Still think he is Fred Jones II? I took a lot of heat for saying it was a good pick for the Sonics. Dude is ballin outta control.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              I wanted Westbrook and Gordon, but I knew both of them were unrealistic where we were picking.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                If you love Harden and/or love this draft and love the Pacers getting a top 5 pick in it, so be it. Right now I'm not seeing it. Most of the guys that returned from possible first round status have been big duds this year. Griffin is about the only returning guy making strides. But Collison, Lawson, Budinger, Clark and even Thabeet all look a bit too much like what they were last year, and these were the guys that would have made this draft at least reasonably deep.
                                been stating since last year that this year's draft will be very weak, thus one of the main reasons i wanted to capitilize on the depth of the 2008 draft. as for harden, yes, harden was top 10 in nearly every "mock draft" out there. not that that means much. coming out of high school, harden was a 5* top 15 player in one of the deepest classes of all time. if you followed harden at all last year you would have seen he more than lived up to that billing, and had stretches where he was the best freshmen in college. 18ppg 5rpg 3apg 2spg as a freshmen? and now has followed that up averaging 22ppg 6rpg 4apg 2spg as the leader on a top 20 team. harden is probably the surest thing in this draft........imo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X