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

Draft Do-Over

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

  • #46
    Re: Draft Do-Over

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    Exactly, so long as Watson and TJ were here, that rookie PG would have gotten the same amount of time..whether it were Ty, Collison, Flynn ect..And you wouldn't have gotten a PF.

    I think the Pacers made the right decision, really. You got a PG who, IMO, is in the same class as the above...who just unfortunatly doesn't get to play, and a PF that unfutuantly has a weird injury.
    IMHO....I think that if we drafted a PG in the draft...we wouldn't have signed Watson....I think that we would have spent what little Capspace that we had that went Watson on a Tweener PF or another Solo-like signing.

    I'm guessing that one of the goals of the FO by the start of the Pre-season was to shore up the PG and PF/C rotations....either through the draft or Free Agency. That's why I think that Bird ( according to rumor ) was trying to swing another deal for another pick to draft Lawson. Since that plan fell through to get another pick......the FO went with drafting Hansbrough and then hit the FA market to sign Watson and Solo.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Draft Do-Over

      Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
      Where is the love for Taj Gibson? He is a double-double machine. His production is what we thought we were going to get from Hans. We also just saw him play over the weekend against us, and he played quite well.
      To be fair....any mobile Frontcourt Low-Post scoring/defending PF does quite well against us.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Draft Do-Over

        Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
        I didn't like the Tyler pick at all because I was a big Blair guy, but then he grew on me a bit. Speaking strictly on hindsight though, how could you not want Collison, Lawson, or even Casspi, given some of our needs (true point guard, toughness, etc)?
        Yeah...I think that it was pointed out by someone here on PD that this last season's draft may not yield too many top-tier Starting quality Players....but it did ( at the very least ) yield some solid rotational Players who could blossom ( when given the opportunity....as Collison and Lawson has shown ) into a "decent to solid" Starter. Crossing my fingers.....given what little that we have seen of Hansbrough......I think that he falls into that catagory of being a solid rotational Frontcourt Player for the immediate future.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Draft Do-Over

          I too like Taj Gibson a fair bit. Just picked from the options, but Gibson would be a useful piece, too.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Draft Do-Over

            Maybe I missed it. Darren Collison anyone? I'd take him no doubt about it. No one else is really close based on his performance lately IMO. After him, I'd say Lawson, then Casspi.

            Collison's numbers:

            http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=3973

            Averaged 22 points, 8 assists, 4 rebounds, 2 steals a game in the month of February while shooting 50% from the field. Turned the ball over a lot, but he's also had the ball in his hands a lot with Chris Paul out.
            Last edited by Coop; 03-04-2010, 01:56 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Draft Do-Over

              Im with Heartlandfan. If we could do the draft over knowing what we know now at 13 you have to pick Collison. Before the draft I don't think any thought he was worthy of a pick that high. I wanted us to get a second first round pick somehow and draft one of the point guards like Lawson, Collison, or Mayor. Whether it is form oportunity or not the kid is killing it. He just scored 35 the other night and is averaging almost 6.5 assists per game.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Draft Do-Over

                Honestly, can anyone really know how good Tyler is going to be? You can only judge him form the few games he played and his college resume. I think he is going to be okay, but not much, if any better than what McRoberts can bring to the table. I love his drive and intensity on the court, but so far when he has gotten into the games he has needed to get to the line a lot to score. I think he might be a little bit undersized and short armed to be a good to great power forward.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Draft Do-Over

                  Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                  Exactly, so long as Watson and TJ were here, that rookie PG would have gotten the same amount of time..whether it were Ty, Collison, Flynn ect..And you wouldn't have gotten a PF.

                  I think the Pacers made the right decision, really. You got a PG who, IMO, is in the same class as the above...who just unfortunatly doesn't get to play, and a PF that unfutuantly has a weird injury.
                  I don't think that's an accurate statement.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Draft Do-Over

                    I would take Collison for sure, or possibly Blair
                    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Draft Do-Over

                      funny, when you first read the thread title you're like "damn sure i would redo it and not draft Tyler"... thing is in this list you have players who are probably having better seasons than Tyler (injury aside) but still you don't feel there is in these young guys any impact player, someone that will take his team to the next level... and oddly you find yourself picking Tyler again... because from what we've seen he s a safe solid pick and could really blossom. this draft is much better than firstly anticipated but still you fall quickly in a land of solid role players who should have good and maybe long careers in the league but no real star. wether you pick 13th 18th or 21st there s no big difference.

                      If I had to redo the draft I'd try to get in the early second round to have a chance at guys like Blair or Thorton... but those picks are probably more pricey than we think

                      anyway we were fortunate to get a talent like AJ so late in the second round so I won't complain. the jury is still out on Tyler but I think Larry did ok on that one

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Draft Do-Over

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I don't think that's an accurate statement.
                        Didn't Rush get a lack of minutes, until Dun got hurt.
                        Didn't Hibbert get far less minutes than he should have, his rookie year.
                        We won't touch Josh.

                        Why would this 13th pick be any different than any of the other middle of the road first round picks.

                        JOB said Price out plays the vets in practice, and clearly does in games too..obviously Ty, Collison, Flynn ect.. would have as well, so why would they have gotten more time?

                        The only thing, that might have changed, is whether we actually signed Watson or not. LB might have felt a little more confident with a 13th pick running backup point, rather than a 52nd. But if Watson was still signed, that young point doesn't play.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Draft Do-Over

                          Man, this says I already voted on this poll, but I don't remember doing so. Anyways, I would have voted Blair. I was totally sold on the idea of drafting him just before the draft. That said, I'm not mad about drafting Hans. He'll be solid for years. I like to refer to him as Dale Schrempf..minus the extended perimeter shooting.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Draft Do-Over

                            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                            O'B has said they think a lot of Price. So you really think he would have played more than Price has/does?
                            To borrow Jim's word, that's irrelevant to me. What matters is that you could get a PG with more talent than AJ Price, such as Ty Lawson or Darren Collison.

                            Even if you take one of them, take AJ anyway and now you have your future starter AND backup PG to move forward with.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Draft Do-Over

                              Here's the thing with Collison. I was WAY DOWN on him, and for good reason. He spent the last 2 years at UCLA with NBA teammates, Westbrook, Love, Holiday, Moute, plus the not shabby Josh Shipp. All he did that entire time was just dribble around, force his own dribble drive action and destroy the shot clock.

                              He was superglue and it wasn't occasionally. I watched him over 2 seasons, maybe 20 NCAA games and it never changed.


                              Now he still is calling his own number often, but I have to admit that out of nowhere he's passing the ball. Somehow the game has finally clicked for him and he realizes he's a PG. I'm stumped by this.

                              He always had the dribble and the quicks, but just TERRIBLE court vision and passing. Travis Best, 100%.

                              Can a guy really change his stripes that drastically? IDK, but I guess.


                              Obviously I take Blair if forced to keep the pick, though this is actually iffy because I wanted to trade out of the draft because I felt like they needed bigs and that this year would be far better for that (and it is). So while I like Blair, I'd trade Blair for Patterson this year if it meant I got to have another pick in this draft.

                              Or maybe with that view I might have taken Holiday knowing I was getting a PF this year and at the time being unsure Price would be on the board later. If I know I'm getting Price 2nd round then I either take Blair or trade the pick.

                              If I could get Chicago to trade for Tyler then I take Blair and Chase Budinger, maybe Sam Young instead of Chase. Tough call.

                              I called to draft Price in round 2 two years ago, so obviously I think they nailed that one.


                              I would never, ever take Tyler. Let him be a great story elsewhere, I'll admit I was wrong when it happens.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Draft Do-Over

                                Seth, the switch is probably due to Chris Paul being his personal tutor this season. He very well might not have had this switch in a situation like ours, actually.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X