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

Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

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

  • #16
    Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

    I take the athleticism, shooting, and most important lockdown defense (if true) and run. He's freaking 19, he can get to be a better ball handler, even if he never becomes a playmaker type Point Guard, maybe you get that from another spot. In today's NBA, I don't think there are more than a handful of pure point guards anyway.

    Unless his defense is just way over stated, it sounds like he'd get time on the floor immediately because he can guard Point Guards. Again, thats a nice launching point. Sounds like at worst he can be a back up defensive minded Point Guard, when have the Pacers had that.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

      I think the difference between Bradley and Gordon is that Gordon is built like an NFL Fullback and so is harder to post up at the SG position, and is also better at absorbing contact.

      Bradley, to me, is a little like Ben Gordon, but maybe not quite as talented. If you look at a best-case scenario where Bradley becomes a Ben Gordon that plays hard defense, the question you have to ask yourself at this point is, "Is this a player that I see as a starter on a playoff team?". If the answer is no, then I think you need to look somewhere else at #10. I think that Bradley can be a good energy guy off the bench of a contender, or he could be a starter for a lottery team. The only exception to this is if you paired him with a SG with PG abilities, such as Tyreke Evans, Brandon Roy, or Evan Turner.


      I think he'd be a good pickup at around 20 or later, but at #10, you're looking for players that make you a playoff team within 3-4 years, not guys who might not even start for you in 3-4 years.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

        Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
        I think a lot of ppl on this board are backwards when it comes to Bradley and Bledsoe. Bledsoe looks like a nice talent if you're picking (15-25), but Bradley has a far higher ceiling. Bledsoe is Johnny Flynn/Kyle Lowry like. Bradley is long and athletic like Rondo/Westbrook. He can shoot too. It's a no brainer IMO.

        I think there is a very good chance Bradley is gone by #10. He'll jump just like Westbrook did two years ago.

        I disagree. I think that Bledsoe is a PG who's stats were affected by being forced to play out of position at SG, whereas Bradley is a SG who's stats were affected by being forced to play out of position at PG.

        As for comparing Bradley to Rondo/Westbrook, the comparison is off. First, Rondo has always been a PG first. He's always been a good passer, a good floor general, and a good game manager. His problem was his shooting ability. Bradley has the exact opposite problem.

        Westbrook is a better example, but Westbrook plays with at least two teammates who are comfortable as the initiator of the offense. In essense, all Westbrook has to do is get the ball past half court and get it to Green or Durant and be ready to shoot an open jumper or drive to the hole.

        I will say this: Bradley fits O'Brien's idea of a PG to a tee, so I wouldn't be surprised if we take him, but I will be disappointed if a guy like Udoh is still on the board.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

          I wonder if the June 3rd workout between Bledsoe and Bradley is one of the main determining factors.

          I still say first option in Bird's mind is to do a trade like he did with Portland. Heck maybe even for the same player, in a 10 for 12 move down for Jarret Jack with Toronto. That would answer a question for next year at least and you'd still get a guy you want.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

            Originally posted by Eindar View Post

            I will say this: Bradley fits O'Brien's idea of a PG to a tee, so I wouldn't be surprised if we take him, but I will be disappointed if a guy like Udoh is still on the board.
            If Udoh is still on the board at #10 and the Pacers don't pick him, I'll be really unhappy unless a top pick like Turner falls to #10, and is picked.

            I'm still leaning on trading down in the draft, especially with Minnie.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

              I still like Udoh at 10. I also agree 100% we need a starting PG. I am hoping we can find a trade partner that can bring in either a starting quality PG or a front line player. These Mock Drafts always fluctuate, once we have had individual workouts, I think we will see who the best talent is and go from there, but so much can happen between now and then. Ford is 100% correct in saying we have many needs...
              Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                OK, what do we know about Avery
                Here is a good highlight mix video of Bradley





                Then there is the "NEXT STEP" video by addidas which features John Wall AND Avery Bradley
                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                  Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                  I disagree. I think that Bledsoe is a PG who's stats were affected by being forced to play out of position at SG, whereas Bradley is a SG who's stats were affected by being forced to play out of position at PG.

                  As for comparing Bradley to Rondo/Westbrook, the comparison is off. First, Rondo has always been a PG first. He's always been a good passer, a good floor general, and a good game manager. His problem was his shooting ability. Bradley has the exact opposite problem.

                  Westbrook is a better example, but Westbrook plays with at least two teammates who are comfortable as the initiator of the offense. In essense, all Westbrook has to do is get the ball past half court and get it to Green or Durant and be ready to shoot an open jumper or drive to the hole.

                  I will say this: Bradley fits O'Brien's idea of a PG to a tee, so I wouldn't be surprised if we take him, but I will be disappointed if a guy like Udoh is still on the board.
                  The Rondo comparison was more physique than skill set. My point is, Bradley has the physical tools that seem to translate better into a successful NBA player than Bledsoe does.....mainly height and athletiscm. Bradley is the long athletic type (Rondo, Westbrook, Evans), where Bledsoe has the shorter bulldog type frame (Flynn, Lowry, Nelson, Fisher).

                  Both Bradley and Bledsoe played off the ball in college, but I will concede that Bledsoe is a more natural PG than Bradley. Keep in mind though, ppl said the same thing about Holiday and Westbrook.

                  Regardless, I like them both, a lot. I just tend to lean towards Bradley b/c of his physique, which appears to be the trend right now. You can't teach that.

                  I like Udoh too, but eventually we have to come to a point where we stop stock piling rotational players and swing for the fences. Udoh is nice, but he'll never make an ASG. He's also 23 years old already.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    Sounds like at worst he can be a back up defensive minded Point Guard, when have the Pacers had that.
                    Jamison Brewer.

                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                      I don't like Mocks that don't give 2nd round picks. I feel this 2nd round has some gems in it, and I feel the Pacers could garner one or two.

                      Some that I have an interest in are:

                      Lawal
                      Jordan
                      N'Diaye
                      Garcia
                      Robinson
                      White
                      Vasquez

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        I Sounds like at worst he can be a back up defensive minded Point Guard, when have the Pacers had that.
                        Sure we can argue about how defensive minded these players actually were, but in theory it was supposed to be their strength.

                        Erick Strickland
                        Anthony Johnson
                        Jack
                        Watson
                        Brewer

                        all were supposed to be defenders, maybe Strickland was the only one who actually was.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          I don't like Mocks that don't give 2nd round picks. I feel this 2nd round has some gems in it, and I feel the Pacers could garner one or two.

                          Some that I have an interest in are:

                          Lawal
                          Jordan
                          N'Diaye
                          Garcia
                          Robinson
                          White
                          Vasquez

                          Lawai's size worries me. He didn't measure out too well.

                          Big fan of Vasquez in the 2nd rd - I can't understand why he is so low in mocks. He's slightly older at 23, but he still should be late 1st material. The guy averaged 20, 5, & 6 in the ACC. Great size and he can defend too.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                            We need to get our paws on Crawford in the second. I heard he is tearing up the guard opposition at the workouts.

                            Kid can shoot. Good athlete and size.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                              Wow and so many people were saying that Hayward would drop, and now Ford has him going in the lottery, Bird's gotta pull the trigger!
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 3.0

                                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                                Wow and so many people were saying that Hayward would drop, and now Ford has him going in the lottery, Bird's gotta pull the trigger!
                                If Hayward is going before us in the lottery, that's good news because it means someone is falling.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X