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

    http://www.nbadraft.net/node/18889
    these Whiteside guy to me is intriguing, he seems like a nice pick but like Seth said he is getting numbers againts bad competition.

    Positional Rankings Updated
    By Aran_Smith
    Thu, 03/04/2010 - 5:27pm
    With March upon us, it's time to recalibrate the positional rankings.

    2010 Positional Rankings



    Hassan WhitesideJohn Wall has had some ups and downs, but shows potential unmatched on the college level. With his tremendous athleticism and speed, he will have a chance to become a top 3 PG in the league someday. While Evan Turner has closed the gap on him, Wall remains the clear cut #1 pick.

    Evan Turner has run away with the National Player of the Year award and appears to have done the same with the #2 pick in the draft. He's even begun to put some heat on John Wall with some chatter building about his chance to unseat Wall as the top overall pick. While we don't see it happening, a big run for Ohio State in the tourney could make things interesting.

    Wes Johnson is a more polished, safer, more NBA ready option than Al Farouq Aminu but without question Aminu has more sheer potential being 3 years younger and a stronger, more fluid athlete. Wes has been a first team All-American type of performer this year, and projects well to the league as an athletic catch and shoot SF. Leading the 'Cuse to the promised land would help in Wes' bid to be a top 3 pick.

    Donatas Motiejunas hasn't lit the world on fire playing for Bentton Treviso but he's had a very solid season putting up quality numbers for a 19 year old rookie. Scouts worry about his defense so playing on a team with a defensive presence at the 5 would help him. He may never be Dirk, but he could be Bargnani, and he definitely isn't Darko (he's proven himself as a solid player on the senior level in Europe). He gets the nod over Derrick Favors due to his offensive skill level, although Favors has enticing athleticism.

    Hassan Whiteside tops our center list. He has already put forth 3 triple doubles this year. While his game isn't as NBA ready as DeMarcus Cousins', he has more potential. His shot blocking and shooting touch give him a lot of intrigue, not to mention the fact that scouts have concerns over Cousins' maturity level.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      If you look at recent years, the draft lottery will be a nerve wrecking night for us Pacers fans.

      I'll just do the worse 7 teams from lottery 1-7 first and show the results

      2009:
      1. Kings
      2. Wizards
      3. Clippers (1st pick)
      4. Thunder (3rd pick)
      5. Twolves
      6. Grizzles (2nd pick)
      7. Warriors

      2008:
      1. Heat (2nd pick)
      2. Sonics/Thunder
      3. Twolves (3rd pick)
      4. Grizzles
      5. Knicks
      6. Clips
      7. Bucks
      9. Bulls (1st pick)

      2007:
      1. Grizzles
      2. Celtics
      3. Bucks
      4. Hawks (3rd pick)
      5. Sonics/Thunder (2nd pick)
      6. Twolves
      7. Blazers (1st pick)

      2006:

      1. Blazers
      2. Bulls (2nd pick from Knicks trade)
      3. Bobcats (3rd pick)
      4. Hawks
      5. Raptors (1st pick)
      6. Twolves
      7. Celtics


      Someone outside of the top 3 always seems to move into the top 3, you could even go back another year to 2005 when the Bucks had a 6.7% chance and won #1 taking Bogut.

      It looks like the 4-7 range has a really good shot of moving into the top 3 when looking at recent history. Let's hope that trend stay the same since the Pacer looked poised to be in that range, let's also hope no team jumps us.

      Looking at history, it appears that the Pacers have a better chance of dropping a slot or two, or moving into the top 3, then they do of staying put at the pick they end the season with.

      Here's hoping for a little luck

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        The Knicks are cheating...throwing games to pass the Pacers in the draft.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          The Knicks are cheating...throwing games to pass the Pacers in the draft.
          No point for them really, since the Jazz get their 1st round pick regardless

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            http://espndb.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=46133

            Hassan Whiteside

            2009-2010 Game Log (Marshall) Rebounds
            DATE OPP RESULT MIN FG FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA PTS OFF DEF TOT AST TO STL BLK PF
            11/15 NC A&T W 79-63 14 4 4 2 4 0 0 10 2 1 3 0 0 0 5 4
            11/17 Middle Tennessee W 63-60 23 2 6 4 8 0 0 8 4 6 10 0 1 0 4 1
            11/21 @ODU L 70-62 14 2 6 0 2 0 0 4 2 3 5 0 2 1 1 2
            11/25 Lamar W 87-74 24 7 10 0 0 0 0 14 4 8 12 0 1 1 4 3
            11/28 @Ohio W 60-53 29 7 11 0 4 0 0 14 6 11 17 0 2 0 9 3
            12/3 Salem International W 119-35 22 8 11 3 6 0 0 19 1 3 4 0 1 1 3 0
            12/7 @Binghamton W 69-55 25 5 7 1 5 1 1 12 1 4 5 1 4 0 5 2
            12/12 Troy W 99-70 23 4 11 3 8 0 0 11 5 7 12 1 0 0 5 1
            12/16 Brescia W 105-54 25 8 11 1 1 0 0 17 3 11 14 1 3 0 11 2
            12/20 High Point W 109-76 20 3 5 7 9 0 0 13 7 3 10 0 4 1 6 4
            12/22 @UNC L 98-61 23 3 8 1 2 0 0 7 1 3 4 0 0 0 3 3
            12/28 @Troy W 78-75 32 7 11 4 6 0 0 18 5 11 16 1 6 1 3 3
            1/2 St B'nvntre W 80-61 19 6 11 5 6 0 0 17 4 8 12 0 2 1 6 3
            1/5 So Miss W 76-63 23 1 2 3 6 0 0 5 2 4 6 0 0 0 7 3
            1/9 @E Carolina W 83-65 30 4 11 2 2 0 0 10 0 4 4 0 1 1 5 2
            1/13 @C Florida W 81-75 32 5 8 4 6 0 0 14 4 10 14 2 0 2 10 1
            1/16 Tulane W 89-79 34 9 14 2 2 0 0 20 6 6 12 0 3 1 8 3
            1/20 W Virginia L 68-60 39 6 12 5 6 1 1 18 2 4 6 0 0 0 2 3
            1/23 UAB L 61-59 31 4 11 3 5 0 0 11 3 10 13 0 2 1 5 4
            1/27 Memphis L 75-72 34 9 12 4 6 0 1 22 3 5 8 0 3 0 7 1
            1/30 @Houston L 81-66 25 4 12 2 5 0 0 10 1 7 8 0 5 0 4 2
            2/3 @Tulsa L 73-69 25 4 9 2 2 0 0 10 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 5
            2/6 E Carolina W 100-49 18 5 10 5 7 0 0 15 1 5 6 0 1 0 4 3
            2/9 Rio Gran W 115-73 19 5 8 5 10 0 0 15 2 7 9 2 1 1 5 1
            2/13 @UAB W 81-74 26 4 11 2 2 0 0 10 1 7 8 0 3 2 4 4
            2/17 Tulsa W 64-58 21 5 11 7 9 0 0 17 2 7 9 0 0 0 4 4
            2/20 @Tulane W 58-55 20 4 7 2 4 0 0 10 0 5 5 0 0 0 7 4
            2/24 @Rice W 77-54 32 6 12 6 9 1 1 19 4 13 17 0 4 2 4 3
            2/27 C Florida W 121-115 47 3 6 8 15 0 0 14 2 9 11 1 4 0 13 3
            3/2 UTEP L 80-76 37 7 19 6 7 0 0 20 6 8 14 0 4 0 6 1
            3/6 @SMU W 73-57 30 5 10 7 9 0 0 17 2 8 10 0 0 1 3 2
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Whiteside with another triple-double last week -- his third of the season.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                The Knicks are cheating...throwing games to pass the Pacers in the draft.

                When you get blown out by the Nets, something is fishy.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by owl View Post
                  When you get blown out by the Nets, something is fishy.
                  Utah: Donnie, here is the breakdown:

                  #1 pick - 10M
                  #2 pick - 5M
                  #3 pick - 4M
                  #4 pick - 3M
                  #5 pick - 2M
                  Top 10 - 1M

                  Do whatever you need to do...

                  Actually, I think the Knicks out-rebounded the Nets so they did not throw the game. Let's just say they had a off-night shooting the 3...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    What about Renardo Sidney in the 2nd round?

                    He's a top-10 recruit whp was once pegged as a potential #1 pick this year. His stock has plummeted due to being declared ineligible over recruiting issues (he's played 1 game), and he's put on some weight, but he could be worth taking a shot at -- especially if he's still there at #57 (assuming Dallas relinquishes the pick).

                    Renardo Sidney - College Basketball Recruiting 2009 - ESPN

                    27/14 as a senior, playing in Los Angeles.

                    Draft him and send him to Ft. Wayne for a year if necessary.
                    Last edited by Lance George; 03-07-2010, 05:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Whiteside - well Conf USA tourney is starting and Marshall has a bye. Looks like they will get Tulsa which would be an interesting challenge. I think Marshall is totally out of the NCAA tourney unless they win the CUSA tourney.

                      Another thing about Whiteside that worries me (as it did with Ed Davis) is that the NBA is a man's game if you play the frontline. Cousins vs Whiteside in that regard seems like no contest.

                      Lanky bigs, lightweight bigs can do things in college but get pushed all over the court even by guys like Foster.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        http://www.wvgazette.com/Sports/Marshall/201001240477
                        That said, a few games tell me Whiteside needs refinement, and more work in the weight room.


                        He had to have that game to make you cringe, and that pretty much sums up the North Carolina game. By the midway point of the second half or thereabouts, he vacated the area around the rim for good, mindlessly flinging a 17-footer before being summoned to the bench.


                        Wednesday's game against West Virginia was a decidedly mixed blessing. The most impressive thing about it: Eighteen points, the first 16 without a dunk.
                        The least impressive was getting a "minus-1" in the rejection category. And that's been a painful lesson for Whiteside, who previously hasn't had to consider the possibility his shot could get sent back.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Wake vs Clemson - this goes all to AMINU. Booker had a modest game more in keeping with an undersized (though strong) big closer to the 30-35th pick range.

                          Aminu and SRob are really solid SF prospects. I put Wes Johnson in the tall SG list right now rather than SF.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                            Someone outside of the top 3 always seems to move into the top 3, you could even go back another year to 2005 when the Bucks had a 6.7% chance and won #1 taking Bogut.

                            It looks like the 4-7 range has a really good shot of moving into the top 3 when looking at recent history. Let's hope that trend stay the same since the Pacer looked poised to be in that range, let's also hope no team jumps us.

                            Looking at history, it appears that the Pacers have a better chance of dropping a slot or two, or moving into the top 3, then they do of staying put at the pick they end the season with.

                            Here's hoping for a little luck
                            This is one of the reasons why I don't think it's an automatic lock for the Nets to get the 1st pick. Technically, they have the best chance to win it....but history has shown that it's not always best to have the worst record.

                            BTW....right now, we're stuck with the 4th worst record in the league. With Monta Ellis and Biedrins having health issues....my guess is that I can totally see the Warriors shut the both of them down in the coming weeks in an effort to solidify their hold on the 3rd worst record. Ironically, the Warriors seem to do much better without Monta in the lineup while having Curry run the show. But having a chance to get Wall, Evans, Cousins or Favors will probably be worth it. My hope/guess is that ( at worst ) we'll end up with the 6th to 8th worst record in the league.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              If Whiteside declares....I can see some team in the mid-teens take a gamble on him...just for the pure upside.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by owl View Post
                                When you get blown out by the Nets, something is fishy.
                                Yeah....but didn't they send their 2010 pick to the Jazz? Is it protected in any way?

                                If anything....the Jazz are probably rooting for them to lose. Wow.....the Knicks just don't care about draft picks. Zeke virtually mortgaged the Knicks entire future just to get their hands on players like Crawford and Curry.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X