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

  • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    If Tyler is on the team I think he and Varnado make a great pair. With Hibbert and Granger
    the other frontline players the Pacers need a rebounder/shot blocker on the other side to
    clean up the slop. I really need to see him play to see if he is D Rodman redux without the
    mental issues.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
      I am with you 120% on Patrick Patterson. I would take him over Favors. Onb top of all your analysis, I would say that he has the work ethic that many of these other bigs high in the draft have yet to prove. I will take a proven worker. Patterson has improved his ball handling and outside shot this off-season. Patterson should be the one being fed in the post, but the difference between having him at weak side and Cousins at weak side is huge. I really like the added bulk he put on as well. He has filled out and I think he would be a perfect fit on the Pacers.
      +1

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
        I don't know that Varnado will be the steal of the draft. Varnado has a loong way to go to be a capable NBA player. He is a complete liability on the offensive end outside of his offensive rebounding. IMO, he is like Jeff Foster who has a chance to stay in the NBA for a long time because he specializes so much. He is a good defender and rebounder, and a great shot blocker. He will only be so effective on the court, unless he is paired with a great scorer. Think Dikembe Mutombo on the Sixers with Iverson.
        How's Varnado's Basketball IQ?

        He may have all the athletic skill to jump out of the arena....but if he doesn't have the necessary smarts to properly use them.....he's not going to do very well in the NBA. Think Stromile Swift as opposed to Jeff Foster.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          I'm baffled by this sudden Patrick Patterson lovefest. His production is down this year, which is bothersome. Has he already peaked? It's also a mystery how a guy with his size, wingspan and athleticism remains such a terrible rebounder and sub-standard shot blocking threat - two things that made Dale Davis.

          He'd be o.k. in the late lottery and beyond, but to spend a top-10 pick on him would be foolish. He has too many holes in his game, holes which could be justified with someone less experienced, but not with a junior.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            18 and 9 from last year to 16 and 8 is not that much of a drop off. What Meeks took last year is being split with Wall and Cousins. Considering all the freshmen on Kentucky's team, it's good to see the success and PP's continued production. It's also interesting that he's showing an ability to hit the 3PTer, which we didn't know this year.

            Are any of you guys impressed by Bledsoe of UK? He really looks like a guality PG with strong NBA-level talent, while Wall gets all the press.

            Also, anybody like Gilbert Brown of Pitt (SG)?

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              18/9/2/2 to 16/8/1/1 - pretty noticeable drop. His free throw percentage has dropped from .768 to .600 - from above average to below average in a single offseason. Despite playing with arguably the most skilled freshman point guard in modern times (post-1985), his points-per-shot remains the same (1.53).

              It's also not just that he's somewhat regressed, it's that he isn't improving, which is what you wanna see out of draft prospects.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                18/9/2/2 to 16/8/1/1 - pretty noticeable drop. His free throw percentage has dropped from .768 to .600 - from above average to below average in a single offseason. Despite playing with arguably the most skilled freshman point guard in modern times (post-1985), his points-per-shot remains the same (1.53).

                It's also not just that he's somewhat regressed, it's that he isn't improving, which is what you wanna see out of draft prospects.
                You have to account for the fact that he isn't being asked to play anything like he has in the past. He's shooting jumpers and floating around the perimeter a lot more.

                It's not only the skills you have, it's what you're asked to do as well.

                -- Steve --

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                  You have to account for the fact that he isn't being asked to play anything like he has in the past. He's shooting jumpers and floating around the perimeter a lot more.

                  It's not only the skills you have, it's what you're asked to do as well.

                  -- Steve --
                  Yeah, I agree. I actually think Calipari is trying to help him display his other attributes for the NBA. Not only that, but you can't have two guys clogging the lane (Cousins and Patterson) when your point guard does so much penetration. Cousins isn't quite the player that Patterson is (yet). He can't step out and hit that midrange jumper like Patterson can, which is probably why Calipari elects to have PP do what he does. The fact that he isn't playing in the deep post as much helps explain a slight dip in rebounds and what not. The system being different surely plays a part as well.

                  Moral of the story: Numbers don't tell the whole story.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                    18/9/2/2 to 16/8/1/1 - pretty noticeable drop. His free throw percentage has dropped from .768 to .600 - from above average to below average in a single offseason. Despite playing with arguably the most skilled freshman point guard in modern times (post-1985), his points-per-shot remains the same (1.53).

                    It's also not just that he's somewhat regressed, it's that he isn't improving, which is what you wanna see out of draft prospects.
                    Well then I guess one could say the same thing about Hansbrough from his junior to senior season...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                      I'm baffled by this sudden Patrick Patterson lovefest. His production is down this year, which is bothersome. Has he already peaked? It's also a mystery how a guy with his size, wingspan and athleticism remains such a terrible rebounder and sub-standard shot blocking threat - two things that made Dale Davis.

                      He'd be o.k. in the late lottery and beyond, but to spend a top-10 pick on him would be foolish. He has too many holes in his game, holes which could be justified with someone less experienced, but not with a junior.
                      Watch them. Patterson gets all his stuff on his own. That team is all about the freshman (and yes, that includes Bledsoe who is interesting). It shouldn't be, but at least for now it is.

                      He's the most muscular of the bigs I've seen, though Favors is a healthy dude too, and also has the most explosive hops.
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-19-2010, 12:08 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Is there anyone in the top 15 of prospects with a Granger/Shawne type of body and/or skills?

                        I wouldn't be shocked if we tried for a "do over" on getting Shawne Williams (minus the baggage).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          UNC vs Ga Tech
                          Ed Davis vs Lawal and Favors
                          First off, Hensen is out of my scouting at this point. He had a nice dribble drive dunk when GT rotated to help in the lane before the pass, but for all intents this kid is top-end Bender at the same age. He might someday be something, but he'd be a fool to come out of UK this year.

                          Favors - well he spent most of the game on the bench due to fouls. One of them was a dumb elbow swing to clear after he already had the rebound secured. So here he was with 2 quick ones in about 2 minutes and he was done for the first half, virtually. He got his 3rd on another slop play early in the 2nd and that benched him for another chunk of time.

                          So he barely went against Davis. When he did he was clearly a bigger guy and stronger. He's got the most athletic potential of the 3 but was prone to a series of mistakes all game. He could very well mature during the year and improve, that's what these kids do after all, but he's a little raw right now.

                          However he's got potential to be Oden-like as a center (sans injury of course). He can get up higher than Lawal and as I said he's much stronger than Davis. I actually like him despite the errors, but I will need to see him improve to feel more confident.

                          Lawal - a beast. The only issue here is that he's a senior and like most seniors he plays a more mature, refined game than the youths.

                          His bad shooting had almost nothing to do with Davis. Davis had one shot tip away at the rim and another slightly altered, both of these were early in the game. The rest of the time Lawal was his own worst enemy as he for some reason insisted on taking turn around jumpers when the UNC double team came. Those shots sucked.

                          However UNC did double him and there was a reason. He was able to get post position AT WILL vs Davis and when he did he often scored going directly at him in the post. He also outrebounded Davis on countless occasions. At least once he was outmanned in traffic with Davis part of the group, still got the board, and then went right back up and scored it.

                          I think all but 1-2 of his boards came in heavy traffic and often with Davis on the losing end.

                          Lawal had 3 issues:
                          1) He is a bit smaller, more PF than C, so the hoppy Davis did have the ability to deny him if he was faced up and able to get a step into his jump. Lawal can't jump over him.

                          2) Those turnarounds. Bad shot selection. He did get better so obviously the coach got in his ear. Later he passed out of doubles.

                          3) For some reason far out top he makes dumb choices. Several times he went for steals or aggressive trap/doubles and overplayed into the backcourt, taking himself out of the defense or fouling. One foul was him on offense coming way out high and basically throwing a hip as a "screen". Why? I don't know.

                          In every other way he was a classic, dominating big. He controlled the inside with muscle and leverage and made life miserable for all the UNC bigs.


                          Davis - nope. I don't see it. Per above, Davis score exactly 2 points from the true low block. That was when a POINT GUARD got switched onto him.

                          All game long, and I mean all game, Davis tried to get post position and couldn't. Lawal took it from him time after time. Davis often had to settle for playing away from the rim, and 2-3 of his rebounds were long ones to the FT line that he got partially with his hops. One time he was able to dribble one of these past Lawal for a layup.

                          He had 4 blocks, but none were strong. One was a SG trying to make an awkward play in the lane, 2 were early finger tip jobs on Lawal putbacks where he used his hops to get up, and the other IIRC was as someone drove and he reached to his side and got it (good reach, but not classic block).

                          I'll take defense, but these were empty stats. He was not scaring people out of the paint and he couldn't contain Lawal at all. UNC double teams contained Lawal.

                          Like I saw vs Clemson and Rutgers who also have power bigs, Davis is not ready to muscle those big boys and work the post. He's a face up big with hops who likes to come to the rim rather than play at the rim.

                          He's not as athletic as Garcia or Sanders.

                          A play of note was late with UNC trying to hold on to a comeback attempt, he got trapped out by HC, picked up his dribble and tried to protect the ball. He raised it back over his head and Favors came up and took it right from him.

                          Another one was a big transition when he got the ball quickly in the post, went to get the layup and got his shot destroyed by Peacock or someone. (not Lawal/Favors).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Is there anyone in the top 15 of prospects with a Granger/Shawne type of body and/or skills?

                            I wouldn't be shocked if we tried for a "do over" on getting Shawne Williams (minus the baggage).
                            Wesley Johnson (SYR), though he's so lanky he's almost more Odom in style (but thinner than Odom at this point, you assume he will add a bit more weight).

                            However I'm not sure he has that kind of quality outside shot. That's the dealbreaker there, a kid with the Shawne stroke, smooth and consistent.

                            edit - actually he's at 44.6% from college 3 this year, so I guess he does. He was coming off the flu on SAT so he didn't show that. I knew he had some outside shooting but SAT was the first full game of his I watched.

                            edit edit - I've been so busy today I didn't see that SYR/Dame outcome. Looks like he went off. And it looks like ESPN has the online replay to view. You might want to check it out. He's #4 and the lanky SF type. You'll figure it out pretty quick, especially given the numbers he put up.

                            Also watch the greatest slop offense out there, Harangody. Great kid, terrible prospect.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-19-2010, 12:38 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              I don't see how he could possibly play the 4 in this league weighing under 200lbs and only being 6'7". Shawne and Danny are 6'9" with long wingspans.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                First, you can't totally trust some of those stats, even in the NBA I've noticed. I need to see guys side by side. Ebanks is listed 2 inches taller AND heavier. Good luck with that, didn't look like it to me when they played. Heavier maybe.


                                Second, I consider him a true SF prospect, and techincally that's what Danny and Shawne were. Wesley looks lankier than either one of them to me. I didn't know you wanted a PF type, I thought you wanted an SF who could rebound and hit the 3.


                                There are several 6'9"-10" PFs who consider themselves outside guys too, but I don't know that any of them have true range to the 3. Brackins at Iowa St maybe?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X