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

NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

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

  • #16
    Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
    Alright, that's exceptional talent to play with at the college level. You would think with those guys he would be capable of getting each of them one basket a night. That's not to much to ask, is it? Just one basket each, he can ignore the rest of the team. But no, he couldn't even do that.

    In such a point guard starved draft, there's a reason why Bledsoe is rated so low. Again, if people want to trade down and get him, that's fine. But don't waste a top-10 pick on someone you hope can play point in the pros when there's no tangible evidence he actually can.
    I agree if you trade down and select him then thats fine. Why wouldn't you opt to get a better rookie contract and possible additional picks but this pick and this year is about filling needs. Honestly Cal saw something in the kid and that says a lot to me. Much more than some freshmen stats and a freshmen dominated team that got booted out of the tourney. Honestly everyone on that team should have been better, IMO.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

      By the time workouts are all said and done one of Bradley or Bledsoe will not be a reach at 10...One is going to sky rocket up the boards. It happens every year around this time.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

        Aren't both Bledsoe and Bradley working out at Conseco next Friday? We will get some video and good interviews to base our opnions on. Lets just wait until than to anoint them draft bust or draft steals.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          Okay, fine, it was his first game, against a really crappy team. Then there was the game against Indiana (no comment), where he had 6 turnovers and 1 assist. Seriously, he averaged more turnovers than assists, which is insane for a "point guard". Oh, but wait, he was playing next to Wall, so that magically makes it okay.

          People desperately want a point guard, so they try and convince themselves that this kid is the answer to our prayers. IMHO he's not. He's really not.
          Did you see a lot of their games? I didn't, maybe 4 or 5, so if you saw a bunch then I've very interested in your opinion.
          What I've read some reports and blogs from KY fans and reporters that follow the team.
          It was consistantly said that he worked very hard, but too often tried to make something happen and forced plays. But they (KY) needed him to try to force action when possible. Nothing riskier than a freshman forcing things. Not uncommon or necessarily worrisome.
          Factor in that Wall probably controlled the ball more than any pg in the country and there wasn't many minutes where he wasn't handling it.
          True freshman pg playing 2 guard for a top 5 team with ANOTHER freshman in the backcourt with him.
          I'd say it was pretty miraculous what they did.

          If he was an upperclassman with 2 or 3 years experience, then the turnovers would be a major turn off, but a freshman, playing out of position and trying to create offense because he was told they needed him to. ????
          If he's got the god given talents and he's a hard worker like they say. He could be the steal of the draft at our spot.
          It's entirely possible that if Wall had sat a little more and given him more minutes at the point to settle down, we might not have a shot at him.
          It's a risk for sure, but I'd rather risk on a top athlete point guard with lots of "potential" than draft a "safe" but probably unimpressive big man that I don't think we really need next year if Tyler and Jeff are healthy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

            I think people seeing someone who is young and athletic..and is at a position of need..they automatically get excited, and think he's the answer. There's "potential." Personally, I'm weary on potential. And I think if Bledsoe is chosen, he'll be a project..someone not ready to be an NBA starting point right away. (Which doesn't mean we should shy away from taking him, just..people need to be realistic. Going into the season with TJ, a recovering AJ, and a project Bledsoe would make our PG situation MUCH worse than last season...and that's saying something..now..Bledsoe and Price in two years..could be a fantastic PG rotation..but this season..my guess is we'd be reduced to watching AJ hobble around because TJ stinks and Bledsoe isn't ready)


            As for his turnovers, I hate turnovers with PGs. But I will say in his defense, he was a freshman, and he was playing out of position. His role was to score, not to get other players involved. All the turnovers do is suggest that he's not ready to be a starting PG, but we knew that anyway.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

              How are Holiday's and Westbrook's stats so much better then Bledsoe? Are their stats I don't know about?

              Bledsoe averaged 12 assists in HS but has had no success passing the ball? He averaged maybe an assist less then Westbrook or Holiday.

              Darren Collison had multiple games in the NBA with 8 TOs or more, and no one seems to have a problem with him. Most would trade #10 for him?

              I dunno, I guess we'll wait and see how Bledsoe turns out in the pros

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                How are Holiday's and Westbrook's stats so much better then Bledsoe? Are their stats I don't know about?
                Assist-to-Turnover. The two you mentioned were almost 2-1, Bledsoe couldn't even do 1-1.

                Creating scoring possibilities for the other team is never good, but it's excusable when you're creating scoring possibilities for your teammates as well.

                Not getting your teammates the ball is acceptable, provided you're not giving it to the opposition.

                Giving the ball to the other team more often than your guys in scoring position is really bad, especially for someone who is depended on to be a good passer.

                To put it another way, maybe this will show you how bad that is:

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/...r=2010&split=0
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  To put it another way, maybe this will show you how bad that is:

                  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/...r=2010&split=0
                  Not thread relevant, but was anyone else surprised to see McRoberts at the top of that list?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                    FWIW only 2 mock drafts have Bledsoe going in the lottery. And no one has him going IND at #10. He may turn out to be a player someday, but that's too big of a gamble at #10.

                    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/05/18/c...ock/index.html

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                      I am not an NBA scout but I saw every game that Bledsoe played this year, and here is my take on him. Athletically as gifted as any point guard in this years draft, including J Wall, is a better defender than Wall, and a better perimiter shooter.

                      J Wall is a better assist man at this point, and a better finisher at the rim ( slightly taller). Intangibles: Wall is a natural team leader, Eric is very shy and will need to mature some to take on that role fully. Of course I really do not see anyone on the Pacers that could fill that role now. Some great indidvidual players, but no team leaders.

                      Eric probably gave up more for his team this year than anybody, yet left his heart on the floor almost every night. He had some rough nights shooting, and would have spurts of TO's as any freshman would, in fact the whole team suffered from that, but UK played at faster pace than any other team in the country this year... if UK had played slow like Kansas, or Duke, the TO issue would never come up....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                        Originally posted by mikeyism View Post
                        FWIW only 2 mock drafts have Bledsoe going in the lottery. And no one has him going IND at #10. He may turn out to be a player someday, but that's too big of a gamble at #10.

                        http://www.nba.com/2010/news/05/18/c...ock/index.html
                        If Bird can land a veteran pg or something a little bit more proven like Collision then I think we should pass on Bledsoe. If not then I honestly think we should take a gamble with Bledsoe. IMO, Ford will be the starter anyway unless we make a trade for Felton or another temporary fix. We can't afford to not look at this pick as a cheap way to fulfill an important need on the team.

                        If he doesn't work out what have you lost? Its not like anyone can guarantee anyone else at the 10th pick is going to be a for sure starter anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                          I don't think Collison can be an effective NBA guard, he will be a backup PG for 4-5 years, then will head overseas IMO

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: NBA Draft Weekly: Back to Point : (review of Eric Bledsoe)

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            If Bird can land a veteran pg or something a little bit more proven like Collision then I think we should pass on Bledsoe. If not then I honestly think we should take a gamble with Bledsoe. IMO, Ford will be the starter anyway unless we make a trade for Felton or another temporary fix. We can't afford to not look at this pick as a cheap way to fulfill an important need on the team.

                            If he doesn't work out what have you lost? Its not like anyone can guarantee anyone else at the 10th pick is going to be a for sure starter anyway.
                            I think Bledsoe should be the pick as well. I'm not concerned with him being a bust, as I really believe his floor is as a good, defensive minded backup PG. Just because he has physical tools and a high ceiling doesn't make him high risk / high reward player like Whiteside and Davis. I think most of the PFs likely available at 10 (Patterson and Udoh) have similiar floors but not as high ceilings. The only possible guy I can see that I may take above Bledsoe is Monroe.

                            As far as his passing ability he has the most important element IMO - he wants to be a passer. He doesn't believe the best way to help his team is to score. I dont believe he will be a Mark Jackson or a Stockton type passer, but I believe you can build a winning team with him playing a key role. He has the main qualitys I want in a pg - willingness to pass, defensive mindset, and toughness. IMO he will be no worse an NBA player than Jarett Jack. If he continues to improve he can be much better.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X