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

Franchise55's Mock Draft

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

  • Franchise55's Mock Draft

    I'm still pretty new here, so if there is another spot for this, then just move it.

    1. Clippers - Blake Griffin - The clear #1 pick. I don't see the Clippers trading the pick, but even if they did - Griffin is the #1 choice.

    2. Grizzles - Ricky Rubio - Rubio will in all likelyhood go #2, even if the Grizzles decide to trade the pick, Rubio is the choice here.

    3. Thunder - Hasheem Thabeet - I'm not a big Thabeet fan, but he makes sense for the Thunder.

    4. Kings - Jrue Holiday - This is where it gets intersting for me. Its clear the Kings need a PG, and with Martin not being a good defender, Holiday would be a good compliment to him.

    5. Wizards - Jordan Hill - I believe the Wizards will trade the pick, in which case James Harden could go #5, but as of now, Hill should be the guy.

    6. Timberwolves - James Harden - I could see them going with Evans here, but I think they want the BPA. Hopefully Foye can go back to PG for them to make room for Harden, who should help out Jefferson and Love.

    7. Warriors - Tyreke Evans - The Warriors need a big PG to go next to Ellis, he kills two birds with one stone as he also is appealing to Nelson because he can play wing too.

    8. Knicks - Stephen Curry - Hes a D'Antoni type PG, and he is also friends with LeBron, two good reasons for the Knicks to take him.

    9. Raptors - DeMar DeRozan - Bosh finally gets some athleticism on the wing. DeRozan should be the easy choice at this point.

    10. Bucks - Jonny Flynn - Frankly, I think Jennings is the better choice, but the Bucks suck at drafting players and Flynn has been moving up draft boards.

    11. Nets - DeJuan Blair - They got their Center with Lopez, I imagine they will want to put a bruiser next to him. I'm not a big Blair fan, and with the red flags on his knees, Hansbrough might slip into this spot.

    12. Bobcats - Gerald Henderson - The Bobcats need a wing and love defense. Henderson could also reel in some local fans, should be an easy choice for them.

    13. Pacers - Brandon Jennings - Honestly, I'm at the point where I don't see the Pacers keeping the pick. I can see them pulling a similar Bayless like trade, this year as well.

    14. Suns - Earl Clark - I originally had Teague here as he fits the bill of their type of player. At the same time, I looked at their roster and can see the Suns hoping Clark becomes their new Marion. Its a long shot, but something they might look for.

    15. Pistons - Terrence Williams - A reach at this point, but his defense might excite the Pistons. With Rip and Prince, they might go in a different direction, but they don't need a PG and everyone else will take more time than Williams.

    16. Bulls - Tyler Hansbrough - His combine should move him up a lot. The Bulls are confident in Thomas for the future - but I can see them wanting a guy like Hansbrough off the bench.

    17. 76ers - Jeff Teague - With Andre Miller a flight risk, a guy like Teague could come in handy. His 3 point shooting should help Philly.

    18. Timberwolves - B.J. Mullens - Mullens is going to take some type to develope, but with Jefferson and Love, they can wait a few years. Mullens should be a good compliment to whoever the Wolves decide to keep down the road - if not both.

    19. Hawks - Eric Maynor - Bibby might bolt and Law was a mistake, Maynor brings some defense and could eventually take over for Bibby(if they resign him).

    20. Utah - James Johnson - They Jazz get a PF to replace with Boozer or Millsap - possibly both.

    21. Hornets - Austin Daye - Daye slips a bit, but could be a steal at this point. Paul would be the perfect PG to put next to a guy like Daye.

    22. Mavericks - Wayne Ellington - A shooter that will spread the floor for Dirk and co. I can see a PG here as well, but I'm not sure the Mavs would be sold on the ones who are left.

    23. Kings - Chase Budinger - A good athlete who could train behind Nocioni.

    24. Blazers - Ty Lawson - The Blazers are always a threat to trade the pick, but as of now - they go PG and Lawson is the best one left.

    25. Thunder - Gani Lawal - Lawal is a potential steal at this point. If he can come through on his potential, the Thunder could have a very good solid 5 moving forward.

    26. Bulls - DaJuan Summers - Bulls go BPA and Summers is it.

    27. Grizzles - Darren Collison - Its likely the Grizzles will trade either Rubio or Conely, if that happens, they will want a backup PG, and Collison could be the Chalmers of this draft.

    28. Timberwolves - Danny Green - Green is a do it all kinda player, has more potential than people realize.

    29. Lakers - Patrick Mills - Lakers need a PG, and Mills can thrive in the right situation.

    30. Cavaliers - Sam Young - The Cavs select Young hoping he can thrive in the SG position(for the future) next to LeBron.

    Lemme know what ya'll think, all feedback is welcome.
    Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 06-05-2009, 06:02 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

    Lawson at 24?
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
      Lawson at 24?
      I'm a very big Lawson fan, it just makes more sense for the 76ers to get a shooter and the Hawks to get a defensive PG. Past that, most the teams are set with their PG rotation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

        We'll be lucky if we can get Jennings but I'm not getting my hopes up about drafting him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

          Very good mock - especially the lottery. Thanks for posting.

          Only things I see differently are Memphis possibly taking Thabeet and OKC getting Rubio. I'm not sure Detroit takes Terrence either, he somewhat duplicates Afflalo.

          I really like Hansborough to the Bulls - makes a ton of sense.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

            So PsychoT at #13 now won't be that much of a reach?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

              I like about 90% of the picks, but I think James Johnson goes before Tyler.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

                Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                So PsychoT at #13 now won't be that much of a reach?
                I don't think he's a huge reach at #13 - I just think there is a good chance he is sitting around in the late teens. You could maybe move #13 to Minnesota for #18 & #27. Get him at #18 and still have a late first (assuming the Bulls or another teams doesn't grab him before hand). That or we could could buy/trade for a late first and take him there.

                I really don't mind Hansborough - I just don't think he has star potential. I see his ceiling as an average PF - maybe good for 14 and 9 at most - similar to Murp. If a potential star like Jennings, Evans, Holiday, or Derozan doesn't drop, I have no problem taking Hansborough as I think he's a safe pick. Since measurements have been posted, I actually would take him over Blair.

                Call me a risk taker or whatever - I just strongly feel you need stars to win in this league. We have plenty of good roll players in Murph, Foster, Hibbert, JJ, Ford, and Dunleavy. We have one all star in Granger and most likely another one on the way in Rush - we need one more. We already have the roll players - I'm willing to roll the dice at #13 to try and land that star.

                Look back over the years at teams that won a title - you either have to have two hall of fame type talents (Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq, etc) or three all-star talents (Duncan/Parker/Manu, Allen/Pierce/KG, Billups/Rip/Sheed). I strongly feel we have two all-stars on our roster - we need one more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

                  I do not see the Nets picking up Blair. I think they will go with the best SF available. Do not be suprised if they go with T Williams.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Franchise55's Mock Draft

                    Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
                    Call me a risk taker or whatever - I just strongly feel you need stars to win in this league. We have plenty of good roll players in Murph, Foster, Hibbert, JJ, Ford, and Dunleavy. We have one all star in Granger and most likely another one on the way in Rush - we need one more. We already have the roll players - I'm willing to roll the dice at #13 to try and land that star.

                    Look back over the years at teams that won a title - you either have to have two hall of fame type talents (Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq, etc) or three all-star talents (Duncan/Parker/Manu, Allen/Pierce/KG, Billups/Rip/Sheed). I strongly feel we have two all-stars on our roster - we need one more.
                    I don't disagree at all with your thoughts on all-stars. I just don't think anyone outside
                    of Griffin,Thabeet and Rubio has a good chance of being that all-star.
                    It is always very difficult to tell on players because it is so hard to evaluate the heart
                    and desire of any of these picks. You start with talent and then weed out those with
                    questionable desire I guess.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X