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

    I believe Portland has acquired a solid core and feel they are one player away from winning the West. They are very likely to make a draft day deal with or without the Pacers this year.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
      I believe Portland has acquired a solid core and feel they are one player away from winning the West. They are very likely to make a draft day deal with or without the Pacers this year.
      If that is the case it will not be with the Pacers- there is nothing the Pacers can do to provide Portland with the one player they need unless we trade them Granger, which is highly unlikely unless we're offered some amazing package like Aldridge/Outlaw/First round pick. And you know that isn't going to happen and not having Aldridge would probably set them back.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
        Who here thinks that Walsh is working the press to snag someone that he can't get?
        Always.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
          If that is the case it will not be with the Pacers- there is nothing the Pacers can do to provide Portland with the one player they need unless we trade them Granger, which is highly unlikely unless we're offered some amazing package like Aldridge/Outlaw/First round pick. And you know that isn't going to happen and not having Aldridge would probably set them back.
          If Earl Clark is there at #13, Portland would be on line #1.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Wow, NBAdraft.net came out with a post-Patrick-Patterson mock today:

            http://www.nbadraft.net/2009mock_draft

            So if the first 12 unfolded the way they say, and we kept the pick, whom would you want us to choose?
            a) Tyreke Evans
            b) T-Wil
            c) other (like?)


            "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

            - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
              Wow, NBAdraft.net came out with a post-Patrick-Patterson mock today:

              http://www.nbadraft.net/2009mock_draft

              So if the first 12 unfolded the way they say, and we kept the pick, whom would you want us to choose?
              a) Tyreke Evans
              b) T-Wil
              c) other (like?)
              Wow, they've still got TWill at 25.

              If he's still showing there when the draft hits, trade back!
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Check out where Evans and Holiday are...

                I have a feeling T-Will's stock will skyrocket when teams start working him out...but even right now, I'm surprised to see him this low (at 25).

                Someone's gotta slip to 13 though...if only Brook Lopez fell one spot lower last year...

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Wow, they've still got TWill at 25.

                  If he's still showing there when the draft hits, trade back!
                  Yeah, I don't know how we could pass on Tyreke Evans if he's there at 13.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    If that is the case it will not be with the Pacers- there is nothing the Pacers can do to provide Portland with the one player they need unless we trade them Granger, which is highly unlikely unless we're offered some amazing package like Aldridge/Outlaw/First round pick. And you know that isn't going to happen and not having Aldridge would probably set them back.
                    DC_ If Portland believes they can acquire that guy as an earlier draft pick for a few later draft choices this year then the Pacers, Bucks, & Bobcats would listen for sure. Portland does have a lot of draft choices making them players in the trade market on draft day is all.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      nbadraft.net has a love affair with Wayne Ellington. I have not seen him that high in a mock draft ever.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                        nbadraft.net has a love affair with Wayne Ellington. I have not seen him that high in a mock draft ever.
                        Yeah... I have no idea why nbadraft.net has become the leading voice in NBA mock drafts. Year-in, year-out their mocks have been consistently atrocious. It isn't until about three days before the draft when they finally have some clue of what is going. I mean they once had Pitt's Chris Taft as the first overall pick in the '05 draft...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Curry's skills may get lost in translation
                          http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...ame=ncbexperts

                          Monday, May 11, 2009 | Print Entry
                          Posted by Doug Gottlieb

                          It's very difficult not to be taken with Stephen Curry as a player and a person.
                          Spend five minutes with him and you can see that he is humble, bright and from good stock. Rewind the tapes of Davidson's 2008 NCAA Elite Eight run and you'll see there was little he was not able to accomplish against elite competition that had prepared for his every move.

                          This season, Curry had clearly improved in every aspect of his game and only an injury and a new set of less talented teammates held him out of the NCAA tournament. But -- and this is a big but -- if an NBA team selects Curry over Jeff Teague, Patty Mills or Jrue Holiday in the upcoming NBA draft, I believe it would be making a huge mistake, similar to the one the Charlotte Bobcats made in the 2006 draft when they selected Adam Morrison at No. 3, the one the Sacramento Kings made in taking Quincy Douby at No. 19 instead of Rajon Rondo that same year, or the one Minnesota made in 2007 by taking Corey Brewer at No. 7 instead of Rodney Stuckey.

                          While there is no doubt it is easy in hindsight to pick apart each and every miss in the NBA draft's recent history, we do know that there is one truism regarding the comparison between college and the NBA game. And that is that there is no comparison.

                          Do not get me wrong -- the second round has been a haven for highly productive, slightly undersized players, especially those "tweeners" who don't have an established position at the NBA level, and who have spent their college careers refining their skills so they can contribute at the next level.

                          But when selecting in the first round, especially when evaluating guards who were big-time college scorers versus athletes with major-league upside, the first thing that must be taken into account is a player's ability to beat his man off the dribble. Consider the top guards in the NBA at the point guard position. What do Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Rondo, Devin Harris, Tony Parker and Derrick Rose all have in common? If you answered that their first step and overall explosiveness, especially with the NBA's "hands-off" defensive rules, are virtually unguardable, then you'd be correct.

                          Was Curry capable of blowing by defenders in college? No.

                          Is he big enough to shoot over NBA players? No.

                          Does he have a defined position at the NBA level? No.

                          Can he contain the basketball? No.

                          Does he make others better? Yes.

                          Curry clearly made his teammates at Davidson better, and that is a valuable skill. But the answers to the first four questions are more relevant when evaluating whether his skills will translate to the next level. Which is why, when compared with the likes of Teague, Mills and Holiday, Curry seems less worthy of being a first-round pick. The names in the former group might not have proved at the college level that they can make their teammates better in the way Curry can, but they answer "yes" to the aforementioned questions more than they do "no."

                          Teague might have the best first step in the college game outside of Syracuse's Jonny Flynn, and he can finish at the rim. While Teague is also in between positions, playing as more of a combo guard at Wake Forest, his ability to blow by defenders is more valuable in an NBA game than Curry's jumper.

                          Mills is as close to Tony Parker as anyone in this draft and in a head-to-head matchup with Curry, Mills looked much more like a first-round pick.

                          Holiday was simply a bad fit for UCLA at the 2-guard spot. In fact, Holiday's similar to Rondo in that Rondo never truly achieved much of anything at Kentucky in his two years there. The reason is that like Holiday at UCLA, he walked onto a team that had very good college players who demanded the highest column of shots, keeping him from handling the ball, which is his strength.

                          Either Holiday had everyone in basketball fooled when he came out of high school or he succumbed to a fate that was set in motion when Darren Collison chose to come back to school after his sophomore year (when he would have gone top 20) and then again after Derrick Rose obliterated him in the 2008 Final Four. Had Collison departed for the NBA as expected, Holiday would have had all those ball screens to himself. And while Ben Howland's system would still not have been a great fit for his game, he would have looked far closer to the unguardable talent he is expected to be.

                          A player to consider when evaluating Holiday is Daequan Cook of the Miami Heat. While at Ohio State, Cook, like Holiday, seemed out of place in the offensive scheme he found himself in. Cook was actually benched by Thad Matta. But no one doubted his talent, and although he has benefited from playing on a terrible team and thus getting unearned minutes early in his pro career, he proved his skills translated to the NBA, if not in college.

                          The point I am trying to make with these comparisons is that at the point guard position the NBA is far more about speed and quickness than it is about shooting. And that is what Curry is up against. The past tells us is that there is little correlation between college success and pro success. Would you take Rodney Stuckey or Corey Brewer now? It's a no-brainer. How about Tyrus Thomas or Adam Morrison? Quincy Douby or Rajon Rondo?

                          I am not faulting Steph Curry for making the leap to the NBA. Considering the quality of this draft, I am not sure I would fault a playoff-caliber team taking him ahead of Mills. Mills may be jet-quick, but is undersized and is known as a terrible defender. But taking Curry ahead of Teague or Holiday will be a mistake that will be made by a team that will expect Curry to draw fans.
                          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                          - Salman Rushdie

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            The rumor is that the Knicks are taking Curry at #8 I am o.k with that.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              The rumor is that the Knicks are taking Curry at #8 I am o.k with that.
                              I don't buy the rumor, but I'd like to.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Hansborough might have a better NBA career than Stephen Curry.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X