Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

    Should be noted that Blair tore both his ACLs back in highschool.

    It's a real credit to him that he's comeback after that, but those injuries need to be a major consideration for a guy playing at around 260+ lbs.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      Should be noted that Blair tore both his ACLs back in highschool.

      It's a real credit to him that he's comeback after that, but those injuries need to be a major consideration for a guy playing at around 260+ lbs.
      His weight in the combine was 277lbs and is true, more than one team is going to be scare about his knees.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

        As always, a very thorough analysis...another one that I was looking forward to. I have a few questions.

        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
        Blair is a bad "fit" with us because his weaknesses hurt us more than his strengths help us. What we need in a big man I think, more than anything Blair can give us, would be one of two types of players:

        1. A bigger guy with enough athleticism to guard and shut down more perimeter oriented bigs....someone who can drift between playing the wing and the low post depending on matchups. Not a star, but someone who can help us in many different ways.
        This has often been brought up as a defensive need in any PF that we draft......but I'm hard pressed to find out whether there is a "jack of all trades" PF that we can acquire ( much less draft ) that is capable of solidly defending in the low-post while being athletic, quick enough to defend those "perimeter oriented scoring" PFs and still be a capable low-post scoring PF that we are looking for on the offensive end. My guess is that there are players that are capable of providing some of these skills....but few that is capable of "doing it all".

        My guess is that we try to acquire/draft/find one that meets the greatest need to fill....as to what that "need" is...I don't know. What is our single greatest need that we need to fill when it comes to a PF?

        Is it acquiring a Low-Post scoring PF that is capable of rebounding and scoring ( at times ) in the Low-Post?

        or

        Is it acquiring a Low-Post PF that is capable of defending the paint ( but not quick enough to defend the more "perimeter" oriented scoring PFs )?

        or

        Is it acquiring a PF that is capable of defending the more "perimeter" oriented scoring PFs ( but not strong enough to defend the more tougher Low-Post scoring PFs )?

        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
        2. And we also need, probably even more than the above, a big player who can play with EITHER Murphy or Hibbert, so we can use Foster as our 4th big man, and McRoberts as our 5th. We already know that Hibbert/Foster isn't a good defensive combination, so we need someone who can compliment both players, so we can avoid those 2 playing together so much. In a "perfect" world, we'd draft a player who can start over either of those guys and help us....basically, we need today's version of Dale Davis...and that player isn't in this draft.
        Is there even a player out there that can even do any of this that we can acquire that would even complement Hibbert and Murphy?

        My guess is that there isn't.

        One more thing.......how do you think that Blair compares to Joey Dorsey ( another Big Man from last year's draft that was known to be a rebounding machine )?
        Last edited by CableKC; 05-31-2009, 03:33 AM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

          Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
          When it comes to T-Will...I dunno, a lot of that depends on T-Will's character concerns. So much of the draft, at least for the Pacers, is based on intangibles which from a fan's perspective is so hard to read. Does T-Will have more potential than Blair to play an important role on an NBA team? Of course, but no one wants another Shawne Williams situation in Indianapolis.
          Sorry to nitpick about this......but despite the "concerns" that Chad Ford brought up about TWill, I have yet to find any evidence of this from any source other then what Ford alluded to....which he didn't really provide any details about whatever "off court" issues that he has had.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

            Blair has shed some pounds, is quicker, and has been working on his ball handling. He still has a 7'2'' wingspan. He may not have the face up game but he will get points, and consistent rebounding is what we need. He may not be fast enough for the Pacers run and gun style, but if we ditch Jim O'Brien he may fit right in. Even if we keep playing D'Antoni ball, Blair could fit in fine as an undersized 4 if he continues to get in better shape and increase quickness. However, the torn ACL thing scares me.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

              Originally posted by Doug View Post
              OK. I read the rest of it. Dammit. Is it too much to ask for a BIG man than can both play defense against 4s and 5s AND rebound like a madman?
              I think his name is blake griffin in this draft. Rumor has it he won't last long though....

              Personally I still wouldn't mind taking Blair at 13. It's such a weak draft I have a hard time seeing the pacers getting anyone but a role player at that spot. I just think he's a change of pace to put with the 2nd unit. We don't have anyone that can play physical like him. Finesse teams don't go that far in the playoffs, you need that big body that can bang down low.

              Anyway, i love reading Tbird's analysis. You do great work, i can't wait to see what you come up with for Earl Clark and Twill. It seems like a lot of people on here are pretty high on Twill.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                The fact that Blair isn't a good fit for the Pacers is an indictment of the team, not the man. And anybody who's seen him play knows he's a man.

                I agree that Milwaukee and Chicago are good fits for him (no wonder I like watching them). And I can certainly see Larry Brown taking him though they have more pressing needs. New Jersey could use him, though who knows if Frank would know how to use him.

                The more I think about it, I'm scared Chicago will get him. Thomas/Noah/Miller/Blair, that's a damn near perfect rotation.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  The fact that Blair isn't a good fit for the Pacers is an indictment of the team, not the man.
                  As a fan of 90's basketball I sympathize with this comment.

                  But I still fear that Blair is not mobile enough to guard quick 4's on winning teams, like Odom, Dirk, and Rashard Lewis off the top of my head.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    As a fan of 90's basketball I sympathize with this comment.

                    But I still fear that Blair is not mobile enough to guard quick 4's on winning teams, like Odom, Dirk, and Rashard Lewis off the top of my head.
                    Do any of those guys have a prayer of keeping Dejuan off the glass? There is the ying, but then there is also the yang. He would be such a huge mismatch for them in the post it's not even funny.

                    Why should we based the makeup of our team on that? It's a lot easier to win ball games by dominating the glass and the painted area than it is knocking down perimeter shots. Most teams in the league play more traditional PF's anyways.
                    Last edited by Taterhead; 05-31-2009, 01:15 PM.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                      I'm not completly sold on him but I like what I saw here against a great defender like Thabeet. At least we can all agree he is relentless.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPPnfXuYgzU

                      Some more highlights:

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNC-LC-SD6Q

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                        Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                        As a fan of 90's basketball I sympathize with this comment.

                        But I still fear that Blair is not mobile enough to guard quick 4's on winning teams, like Odom, Dirk, and Rashard Lewis off the top of my head.
                        I don't know that many guys who can gaurd those players in the current NBA. I mean the way the NBA is calling fouls is it realistic to think that we can grab a Pf who can guard them. What is more important to me is that we have a guy who is willing to take charges and provide a toughness on the Pacers that will be contagious (much like Artest and Dale provided).


                        IF by chance we do face those teams that have mobile 4s I would much rather stick granger on them than any of our current 4's.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 05-31-2009, 03:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Sorry to nitpick about this......but despite the "concerns" that Chad Ford brought up about TWill, I have yet to find any evidence of this from any source other then what Ford alluded to....which he didn't really provide any details about whatever "off court" issues that he has had.
                          "Concerns" are enough to worry me. I mean I think a GM or coach has the right to be turned off by T-Will's attitude or some of his extracurricular activities even though in and of themselves they may not be worthy of a police report and thus concrete evidence.

                          But it may not be that big of a deal as you are saying. As fans who aren't given access to interview T-Will or know much about him, it is hard to say how much of a risk he is if at all. But based off of even very vague rumors I have to admit it makes me leery.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                            Blair's a throwback player, and I think that's why I like him so much. Whether he'd be a fit on the Pacers right now, I haven't yet fully determined, but I know that any team could use a player like him. He's not going to be a star, but I think he's going to be a productive player in this league.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                              Frankly the Pacers have been weanies since the Davis "Men" were on the Pacers.
                              It is time to add some toughness and if you need to trade up to do it then get him.
                              I know you should rarely do that but this team needs that toughness. Ron helped but
                              we all know the problems he presented.
                              As far as the ACL's. I have not heard of many, if any players that have torn them again.
                              He may have s shorter career because of weight and rebuilt knees but he could easily
                              have a ten year career. In two years the Pacers are going to have some significant
                              expirings to bring in a veteran at whatever position is needed so losing a pick will not
                              be all bad.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #4: DeJaun Blair

                                Another positive quality about DeJuan Blair that jumps out to me is his charisma -- the kind that suggests leadership on the court and in the locker room. He'll be a media darling from Day 1:

                                http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/DeJuan-Blair-5049/

                                I'm focusing on lateral quickness as an indicator of defensive ability/potential, and Blair doesn't offer this. Nevertheless, he sure is the kind of guy that makes me hope we can acquire an additional pick again.


                                "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

                                Working...
                                X