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 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

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

  • #46
    Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    Some are talking about the PG spot being thin in the upcoming draft after Wall, and this may be true, but with a lottery pick, we don't necessarily have to keep the pick if that were to happen.

    We could trade the pick for a nice PG, we could pick for someone else and get an additional player or pick.

    We'll have some options. Say for example the Nets get the 1st pick and John Wall is no doubt the best player to take. Perhaps they move Devin Harris, and lottery pick could get it done adding another player or so for salary.

    Or the 2nd worse team in Minnesota? They already have Flynn and the rights to Rubio, so who knows.

    A lottery pick is usually a good thing. I mean the Wizards got Mike Miller and Randy Foye while also getting rid of a bigger contract. Maybe those two haven't panned out, but when you first heard the deal, you thought the Wizards made out well.

    Gotta love options

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      I seen the UK vs Uconn game last night. First time seeing Wall play. Truly gifted on the offensive end. Regardless of his 6 turn overs in the first half. But the kid can't play a lick of man defense from what I saw. Late in the 4th Kembe Walker broke him down multiple times, made him leave his feet, and he got lost on a pick n roll screen. Often took himself out of the equation on defense by just standing there watching.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        Everything that I've heard from Morway (albeit second-hand) is extremely complimentary of McRoberts. He seems to feel he's a kid with immense potential and could be a solid contributor in the present. For whatever reason, JOB seems to think otherwise.
        I'm shocked.

        One thing I have to hand Morway, I wanted TWill and his response was "He needs to learn to shoot". While he did seem to fix this at L'ville, his shooting has him hitting the bench now. Of course it's really early and I think he will improve.


        Anyway, I was just thinking of staring this thread myself. Typically what I do is put up a TV SCHEDULE of all the top prospects so people that want to discuss them can get a chance to get informed.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Anyway, I was just thinking of staring this thread myself. Typically what I do is put up a TV SCHEDULE of all the top prospects so people that want to discuss them can get a chance to get informed.
          Do it. It seems more organized.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            Willie Warren is really the only other 1st round PG in my opinion and he's pretty much the exact type of PG you say you don't want.

            If we wanted a PG without the first pick in the draft (which is what Wall should be) we should have gotten him last year. And in all honesty, I think A.J. Price is better than any of the PGs in this draft not named Wall or Warren.
            I think Kalin Lucas would have something to say about that. Hes a true leader and has a lot of heart. i would love to have Kalin.

            other guys i like are Trevor Booker from Clemson, Dale Davis type of rebounder.

            Xavier Henry would be an answer to our athletic problems.

            Evan Turner would be a risk, but Danny Granger was an injury prone guy out of new mexico as well.

            And Larry Sanders the PF/C out of VCU has very little offensive skill but hes an athletic, shot blocking, and rebounding phenom.
            "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by IndyProdigy View Post
              I think Kalin Lucas would have something to say about that. Hes a true leader and has a lot of heart. i would love to have Kalin.
              I wouldn't spend a first round pick on Kalin Lucas. He's too small and doesn't have the superior athleticism needed to make up for his lack of size. Hell, he's smaller than T.J. Ford and doesn't have his speed. I'd say the current T.J. Ford is Lucas' ceiling in the NBA. That isn't worth a first round pick. Especially where we'll be picking.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                I wouldn't spend a first round pick on Kalin Lucas. He's too small and doesn't have the superior athleticism needed to make up for his lack of size. Hell, he's smaller than T.J. Ford and doesn't have his speed. I'd say the current T.J. Ford is Lucas' ceiling in the NBA. That isn't worth a first round pick. Especially where we'll be picking.
                Never said he had to be our first pick. i was just debating the fact that there are other decent true pg's in the draft other than wall.
                but now that you mention it, im not concerned with having a super athletic pg, just a pg that can lead a team. kalin can certainly do that, and he can create shots for himself for how small he is, and he can hit clutch shots.

                and i def. believe kalin lucas will be a better pro than aj price. count it.
                Last edited by IndyProdigy; 12-16-2009, 03:30 AM.
                "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Here is my problem with the way Bird drafted last year:

                  I love Hansbrough, everyone knows I'm a UNC fan and even said he'd make a living in the NBA doing exactly what we are seeing now. However, our two weaknesses last year were PG and PF. Last years draft class was stacked with PG's while this one is stacked with PF's. I really doubt we'll find the PG we really need in this class, just hindering our rebuild.

                  I'm still happy with Hansbrough, don't get me wrong - but I have no clue what we are going to do in this draft. Drafting a PF would just make Hansbrough a waste of a lottery pick, we don't need a Center or SF, and there aren't many impact SG's outside Turner who recently had a huge injury(Warren is 6'4, I stay away from smaller players), not to mention we really don't need a wing anyway.

                  I'm thinking unless we hit lottery gold or just suck the rest of the season up, we should maybe look to trade our likely lottery pick with 2 of our expiring contracts for a star to go with Granger. Harris could be a possibility if the Nets get Wall - not saying that deal, but something along those lines might make more sense than drafting a player that won't fill a need.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                    Here is my problem with the way Bird drafted last year:

                    I love Hansbrough, everyone knows I'm a UNC fan and even said he'd make a living in the NBA doing exactly what we are seeing now. However, our two weaknesses last year were PG and PF. Last years draft class was stacked with PG's while this one is stacked with PF's. I really doubt we'll find the PG we really need in this class, just hindering our rebuild.

                    I'm still happy with Hansbrough, don't get me wrong - but I have no clue what we are going to do in this draft. Drafting a PF would just make Hansbrough a waste of a lottery pick, we don't need a Center or SF, and there aren't many impact SG's outside Turner who recently had a huge injury(Warren is 6'4, I stay away from smaller players), not to mention we really don't need a wing anyway.

                    I'm thinking unless we hit lottery gold or just suck the rest of the season up, we should maybe look to trade our likely lottery pick with 2 of our expiring contracts for a star to go with Granger. Harris could be a possibility if the Nets get Wall - not saying that deal, but something along those lines might make more sense than drafting a player that won't fill a need.
                    Yeah, I have had similar thoughts. I guess you can't really blame Bird too much though. It's impossible to predict the future, and while this year's draft looked like it was strong with post players, it was far from a sure thing. He targeted who he wanted and got him. It's just odd how it has worked out.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      I'm obsessed w/ Patrick Patterson out of UK. Dominate rebounder, good shooter, shot blocker, aggressive, emotional, low post scorer, this is the guy I want.
                      "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                      Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                        I'm obsessed w/ Patrick Patterson out of UK. Dominate rebounder, good shooter, shot blocker, aggressive, emotional, low post scorer, this is the guy I want.
                        I'm with you. I was beating the drum for him in last year's draft, if he came out.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                          I'm obsessed w/ Patrick Patterson out of UK. Dominate rebounder, good shooter, shot blocker, aggressive, emotional, low post scorer, this is the guy I want.
                          I don't know about aggressive. He's kind of staying out of the way, IMHO. He needs to anchor that team. He needs to step in when they hit a lull, and demand the ball and keep them going.

                          When UNC made their run, he didn't step up and be the leader. He needs to do that.

                          With that said, he is a very, very good player. He's showing consistant range on his outside shot, and when you combine that with his ability in the middle, it's very intriguing. He's a little undersized, and plays the same position as Hans, but he will be a very nice player in the league.

                          Again, only my opinion.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            I'm thinking unless we hit lottery gold or just suck the rest of the season up, we should maybe look to trade our likely lottery pick with 2 of our expiring contracts for a star
                            This is what I advocated last year instead of picking Hans. I still think that would have been a good strategy.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                              I'm obsessed w/ Patrick Patterson out of UK. Dominate rebounder, good shooter, shot blocker, aggressive, emotional, low post scorer, this is the guy I want.
                              Dominant.

                              "Dominate" is a verb. "Dominant" is an adjective.

                              "I expect Patrick to dominate" is ok.

                              "I expect Patrick to be a dominant player" is also ok.

                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                                Dominant.

                                "Dominate" is a verb. "Dominant" is an adjective.

                                "I expect Patrick to dominate" is ok.

                                "I expect Patrick to be a dominant player" is also ok.


                                While you are grammar tutoring, would you be so kind to explain the difference between then and than.... PLEASE??

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X