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

Bledsoe

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

  • #46
    Re: Bledsoe

    I'm fine with taking Johnson if he's available. Outside of the "big 4" I think he has as much star potential as anyone, and with Brandon Rush not exactly lighting the world on fire and Dahntay being a 29 year old career backup, I think SG is an area of concern.

    Take Johnson and use our 2nd(s) + $$$ to move into the mid-to-late 1st round (where it's not inconceivable Bledsoe could be available) and I'd be satisfied.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Bledsoe

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      Bledsoe, assuming he comes out, will be the second best point guard in the draft. And PG is by far our biggest need. I'd be thrilled if he were the pick.

      He is uber-atheltic, a good passer, and a solid shooter. He could be a smaller, better shooting Russell Westbrook. There's a chance he could be nothing more than a better shooting T.J. Ford but he doesn't seem nearly as selfish to me. I would much rather have a project PG than another backup PF.

      I'm hoping the Pacers draft board looks something like this:

      1. John Wall
      2. Evan Turner
      3. Demarcus Cousins
      4. Derrick Favors
      5. Wesley Johnson
      6. Eric Bledsoe
      7. Al-Farouq Aminu
      I think PF is arguably just as needed.
      We have Troy who we'd like to get rid of, Tyler, who we don't know if he'll be back, and Josh..who probably won't get to play next season.

      At PG we've got TJ, who we'd like to get rid of. Watson, who would like to keep but probably can't afford, and Price..who, has a better shot at playing next season than McBob does.

      neither position is doing well, but in a PF draft, when we do need PFs, we'd have to think about who we want to take.

      That being said, Bledsoe, I think would be a good pick. But that pick means we'd enter the season with TJ/AJ/Bledsoe. With Bledsoe as a project, and looking to get rid of TJ. Personally, I posted before, I'd prefer to pick up a PG in the second round, get rid of TJ and have three really cheap PGs. And yes, they'd be really young, and they'd struggle at times, and IMO, it puts a ton of pressure on AJ, but it also speeds up their progression..and at somepoint you just have to throw the younger guys at the wolves.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Bledsoe

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        Simply, I think he's just a better player. Wing certainly isn't one of the bigger needs of the Pacers but he's the fifth best talent in my opinion.
        Is he good enough to where, if he and Danny can co-exist, we wouldn't need a PG better than Price?

        If the answer is no, then I'd still take Bledsoe.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Bledsoe

          Originally posted by Hillman's 'Fro' View Post
          I don't necessarily have any problem with taking Bledsoe at #10 or so.
          But when watching the posted clip (I've seen him play on TV too), what
          I see is a shorter version of Fred Jones who (contrary to Fred) can go
          to his left.

          What I don't see is any indictaion that he's anywhere remotely close to
          ready to even begin to man the PG spot at the NBA level on a consistent
          basis.

          Again though, since the Pacers can use an explosive, combo-type G
          off the bench (for whatever reason, Head certainly hasn't filled that
          roll), taking him at #10ish makes some sense.

          As for the Aldrich-Foster comparsion, there isn't one. Foster has (or
          had) MUCH more lateral quickness/agility than Aldrich does. At the
          NBA level, Aldrich is strictly a C. A backup C is to far down the priority
          list to waste a high pick on him this year.
          You don't see that because he is not running the point on a consistent basis now. He was never meant to play sg at Kentucky but since Wall signed he was forced to play it for the teams sake. Mind you he has done a really good job of that too. I should also mention we are not talking about converting a sg into a pg like Westbrook. Bledsoe is a pg plan and simple. Fred Jones was a scorer and that was about it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Bledsoe

            Bledsoe is starting to grow on me, especially if he's projected to be Top 5 next season. The PG position seems to be our biggest need. We can always use Ford/Dunleavy/Murphy to get a solid PF.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Bledsoe

              Well.....many of you compare him to Russell Westbrook...who happen to leapfrog over several prospects to be picked at the 4th spot. With all the hype that he's getting.....no one else thinks that he'll be drafted at a spot higher then where we will likely pick....especially if we continue to aim for the best record of the worst Teams ( as in end up with the 10th spot )?

              With the way that you guys are talking about him....I'd consider taking him over Patterson if he's available at the spot that we draft ( my guess is the 10th spot ). But I think that any Team that will be drafting between the 5th to 10th spot ( Philly, Jazz,Detroit, Clippers ) could draft him as a PG...either as a Starter or a Backup PG....especially if he ends up being the BPA....which is easily arguable for any Player after the 5th.
              Last edited by CableKC; 03-28-2010, 03:37 AM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Bledsoe

                My thing with Bledsoe is that he could use an extra year at KY to shine and develop his PG game. I'd feel more comfortable with him as a prospect if he were to do that.

                It's not like Bledsoe had a great outing tonight vs W Va.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Bledsoe

                  Bird will always take the 'safe' pick, I just don't see him spending our 1st pick on an underclassman or international player...maybe a 2nd rounder on them, but not first.

                  I'd love to have Bledsoe, but he'd pick Patterson or Aldrich before him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Bledsoe

                    I'm really hoping that the teams who don't need a PG, don't take a PG. That would be our best bet to get Bledsoe.

                    That or a team with a really good PG already, takes Wall and looks to trade him, or there really good PG, b/c I would be more then happy to trade a lottery pick in the 8-10 range, and even eat a contract while giving an expiring. For Wall, or a really good PG already

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Bledsoe

                      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                      If Minni drafts Turner, theyre going to be one scary team. Probably one of the top teams within the next 5 years.

                      Flynn
                      Turner
                      Brewer
                      Love
                      Jefferson
                      They need to get rid of Flynn and Jefferson. Even if they draft Turner, which would minimize the impact of Flynn's lack of game-management and playmaking skills, I'd rather see them going with Sessions while they wait for Rubio.

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
                      My thing with Bledsoe is that he could use an extra year at KY to shine and develop his PG game. I'd feel more comfortable with him as a prospect if he were to do that.

                      It's not like Bledsoe had a great outing tonight vs W Va.
                      I agree. As a 2-guard, he's a mediocre prospect. He seems to have the tools to be a very good point-guard, but without seeing him play the position it's a wild guess how good can he be.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Bledsoe

                        I'll admit that I haven't seen Bledsoe much before the tournament. But why is everyone so gung ho about drafting him so high? He hasn't looked all that impressive to me, especially last night against WVU. He's only averaging 10 points, 3 rebounds, and 3 assists per game, and his assist-to-turnover ratio has been 2.5:1. I mean the numbers aren't terrible, but they aren't exactly lottery pick worthy. If this were last year, he likely wouldn't even be mentioned in the first round.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Bledsoe

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          My thing with Bledsoe is that he could use an extra year at KY to shine and develop his PG game. I'd feel more comfortable with him as a prospect if he were to do that.

                          It's not like Bledsoe had a great outing tonight vs W Va.
                          Thats the point. Everyone would and I believe you are right that he will go in the top 5 next year if he stays. We are not drafting in the top 5 next year and IMO the only way we get a really good pg is if we pay/trade for one or if we draft one. This is where Bird has to trust in his scouting.

                          There are a number of pgs that come out and everyone is sort of iffy on them. Last year we were talking about Brandon Jennings and the year before that it was Westbrook. Can the guy make the leap to the NBA is all I hear every year.

                          Honestly I think the pg postion is one of the safest postions to draft especially with a pick from 1-10. IF we were talking about him being undersized or being a sg for all his life then yes I would be less comfortable about drafting him. Fact is he is not undersized and he is just playing sg because of Wall. The draft is about finding talent that is combined with a good work eithic. I think he has both just like Patterson.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Bledsoe

                            If we cannot get an immediate impact player we should trade down. Seriously what I am dumbfounded on is the infatuation with Patterson or Monroe. To me they are in the same category as what everyone is complaining about with Bledsoe..which is they are not immediate impact players. To be honest I would rather have Cousins than Patterson. I think he brings more to the table in the NBA than Patterson, but what we NEED is help at the guard position and to me Bledsoe is worth a shot but I think we could trade down to get him.
                            JOB is a silly man

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Bledsoe

                              Teams are going to fall in love with certain players. I believe the Pacers will go away from recent draft status and select a younger player with more potential than polished game.

                              Bledsoe is not terrible I feel he is ie Deaquen Cook status but I just want the team to get more athletic and faster.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Bledsoe

                                Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                                I'll admit that I haven't seen Bledsoe much before the tournament. But why is everyone so gung ho about drafting him so high? He hasn't looked all that impressive to me, especially last night against WVU. He's only averaging 10 points, 3 rebounds, and 3 assists per game, and his assist-to-turnover ratio has been 2.5:1. I mean the numbers aren't terrible, but they aren't exactly lottery pick worthy. If this were last year, he likely wouldn't even be mentioned in the first round.
                                The only reason why I think he MAY ( and that's a very big MAY ) be a lottery pick is due to the severe lack of quality PGs in the draft beyond Wall. After Wall, every PG is slated to go in the mid-20s or even into the 2nd round. If Bledsoe ( with all this new found....but baffling IMHO...hype ) does indeed show that he could become the next Russell Westbrook while considered being the BPA.....I can see him being picked by the 9th spot. Yes, there's a remote chance this happens....but stranger things have happened when it comes to GMs reaching based purely on potential.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X