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's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

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

  • #16
    Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

    Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
    I'm with you on this. I'd love to have a Smits/Davis-esque frontline, a Pacers version of the Two Towers. Hibbert can be a great player and putting a guy like Udoh, who is a 6'10" shot-blocker, next to Hibs would mean we could likely own the paint in the near future. And if we learned anything from this year's Finals, the team that wins the battle in the paint is likely to win the game.

    --pizza
    Udoh is a shot blocker, yes, but he's not a "physical intimidator" like Davis was. Not sure if you were really trying to make that comparison or not. To me he's more like a Ty Thomas type of shotblocker, or Josh Smith. Mobile/agile/athletic, but not powerful/intimidating.

    I'd be happy with Henry as well, I actually forgot about him. I really liked his interview and I thought he was underused at Kansas. He could be a really nice player someday.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

      Originally posted by odeez View Post
      I think Udoh will get better. I am most interested in his shot blocking and defense, we really need someone, besides Hibbert who can hold it down on the defensive end in the paint. I think on the offensive end he is going to be a get better with his mid-range scoring, and also scoring on the block. Rebounding will be another area I think is going to do well with...
      Here's where I struggle with Udoh: I think he will be more than competent defensively, but only against opponents his size.

      His frame isn't the kind that will allow him to defend bigger 4 and 5's... as a result, he's just not going to be the kind of intimidating force that will "beat" people mentally as imawhat alluded to in his fabulous writeup on Hansbrough.

      He seems like more of a finesse player ala JO, which doesn't match up as well with Hibbert IMO. Seems like we need more of a wrecking ball type of 4, with some real girth on him. More like a (hate to say it) D. Blair kind of player.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

        I don't know, I do not see Udoh as a long time starter, more of a possible role player starting out, who in two years we will be wondering why we picked him. He just does not really scream to me that he will be that good in the NBA, but I guess we are the team of average players who who everyone expects to blossom eventually into something very good. Besides Danny and Murphy everyone else is just potential or average...

        I will say that I am glad to see that Roy is finally starting to come around, although he needs to be a lot better rebounder...a lot
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

          Originally posted by docpaul View Post
          Here's where I struggle with Udoh: I think he will be more than competent defensively, but only against opponents his size.

          His frame isn't the kind that will allow him to defend bigger 4 and 5's... as a result, he's just not going to be the kind of intimidating force that will "beat" people mentally as imawhat alluded to in his fabulous writeup on Hansbrough.

          He seems like more of a finesse player ala JO, which doesn't match up as well with Hibbert IMO. Seems like we need more of a wrecking ball type of 4, with some real girth on him. More like a (hate to say it) D. Blair kind of player.

          I hear ya doc, but I will take his 7-5 wing-span & 240 lbs. His abilities to blk shots and get rebounds. I think you want more of a banger there and I wouldn't disagree that it's nice to have some that can move folks out of the way getting to the rim. I look at Udoh shot blocking and rebounding in college and I like what I see, and that is what I want him for.
          Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

            Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
            Udoh is a shot blocker, yes, but he's not a "physical intimidator" like Davis was. Not sure if you were really trying to make that comparison or not. To me he's more like a Ty Thomas type of shotblocker, or Josh Smith. Mobile/agile/athletic, but not powerful/intimidating.

            I'd be happy with Henry as well, I actually forgot about him. I really liked his interview and I thought he was underused at Kansas. He could be a really nice player someday.
            I wasn't directly comparing the two, my thinking is along the same lines as this post \/\/

            Originally posted by odeez View Post
            I hear ya doc, but I will take his 7-5 wing-span & 240 lbs. His abilities to blk shots and get rebounds. I think you want more of a banger there and I wouldn't disagree that it's nice to have some that can move folks out of the way getting to the rim. I look at Udoh shot blocking and rebounding in college and I like what I see, and that is what I want him for.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

              GREAT to hear that Paul George is high on the Pacers list!!! If they keep the pick he has got to be the man
              Murph

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                I'm with PacerPride33 if George is there he is the man. If we have to go big than Udoh would be my choice.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                  can anybody post the mock draft 6.1 please?
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    can anybody post the mock draft 6.1 please?
                    This one is 6.1- I didn't look closely enough at the title....

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                      Slick-

                      I'm with you on Orton. I wouldn't touch him with a 10-ft pole in
                      the 1st round.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                        http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...ght-draft-buzz

                        Tuesday Night Draft Buzz

                        Our Mock Draft v. 6.1 came out early Tuesday morning, introducing a number of serious shake-ups in the lottery. As the day has worn on, I’m continuing to hear a lot of rumblings from teams. Here’s the latest update :
                        As I first reported on Tuesday, the Nets are now leaning toward Wesley Johnson with the No. 3 pick. But the key word here is leaning. Nets sources suggest that Johnson at three is not a done deal and that Favors, and to a lesser extent, Cousins are still in the conversation.
                        Sources in Minnesota are saying that they’ll take Derrick Favors at No. 4 if Turner and Johnson are off the board. The T-Wolves may be bummed by this development, but I think it's a great deal. The team lucked into Rubio at No. 5 last year and get a steal with Favors at No. 4 this year. Those two together could be awesome down the road.
                        The Kings have not made up their mind at No. 5, but a well positioned league source is telling me that they continue to lean toward DeMarcus Cousins with the pick. While there isn’t totally unanimity in the Kings’ war room, that’s where the consensus lies. Greg Monroe is still in the conversation and a trade isn’t out of the realm of possibility but if the draft were to happen tonight, Cousins would be the man.
                        If the Kings take Cousins at 5, we’re left with an interesting scenario at No. 6 in Golden State. We’ve had Greg Monroe pegged there for a week, but after a poor workout, the Warriors are now leaning away from Monroe. A plugged in source tells us that Ekpe Udoh is now the favorite to land in Golden State if the DeMarcus Cousins and Derek Favors are off the board.
                        If Cousins and Udoh are off the board, the Pistons will be choosing between Monroe or Ed Davis. As I first reported this morning, Al-Farouq Aminu fell out of the conversation on Monday after he refused to workout in Detroit. While our Mock Draft has the Pistons drafting Davis, that will change if Monroe is on the board. Sources insist that the Pistons have both Cousins and Monroe ahead of Davis and the other big they like, Ekpe Udoh.
                        At No. 8 we continue to believe that Al-Farouq Aminu is a lock at the Clippers.
                        At No. 9, the Jazz will have a tough decision between Ed Davis Luke Babbitt, Gordon Hayward and Xavier Henry. While nothing is definitive, it looks like Davis has the lead, followed by Babbitt.
                        Speaking of George, the Grizzlies did have him in for a workout today, but I had a few of the facts wrong from Tuesday's mock. This was actually George’s first workout for Memphis (he canceled an earlier one) and owner Michael Heisley ended up not attending the workout. The Grizzlies would still take George if he’s on the board, but if the Pacers take George, it will be Luke Babbitt.
                        Talk of the Wolves trading the 16th pick may be premature. While the Grizzlies and Wolves have spoken, sources say there’s no deal yet. The Wolves continue to talk to teams as high as 5. Especially with it looking more and more like they’re getting Favors at 4, they’d love to add another athletic wing to the mix.
                        Add the Cavs, Mavs and Wizards to the list of teams we discussed on Monday trying to move up in the first round. Neither the Cavs nor Mavs have first round picks, but both desire big men. The Wizards already have two picks (1, 30) in the first but would like to add another in the teens. Right now it appears that the Miami Heat are exploring the possibility of selling their pick (18).
                        Finally, it looks like the Bucks aren't done dealing. This afternoon they traded Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell to the Warriors for Corey Maggette. Now sources say that the Bucks and Nets are in serious negotiations on a deal that would send Chris Douglas-Roberts to the Bucks for a second round pick. With the addition of Maggette and Douglas-Roberts, you have to wonder if the Bucks may look at something other than a wing with the No. 15 pick in the draft.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                          Originally posted by Chuck Chillout View Post
                          This one is 6.1- I didn't look closely enough at the title....
                          I believe this is still 6.0. I looked at 6.1, I think the only difference between the two is that Ford swapped W. Johnson and Favors.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                            A 2nd round pick for CDR seems like a pretty good deal. The Wolves would "love to add an athletic wing to the mix." Does Rush qualify? Or are we not trading him because Bird doesn't want to give up on him?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                              From the latest buzz there, unless a trade for a PG comes together George is sounding very likely at #10... to me at least...
                              "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chad Ford's Mock 6.0 6/22/10 ROUND ONE

                                Originally posted by NappyRootz View Post
                                I also like Henry and if Udoh and Davis are both off the board at 10 than I think the Pacers will be forced to make the pick for themselves and not for a trade partner.

                                At that point their options would seem to be Paul George, who they have repotedly shown interest in, Henry, Patterson , Bledsoe or Bradley. I would like them to consider James Anderson as well who dominated Henry last season.

                                But you are right that SG should almost be as big a priority as PG since we are awful at both spots. Even if you believe that Dunleavy has a big bounce back year, are we really going to give him a big long term extension ? I would hope not.
                                Regarding Dunleavy, we do not need to give him a cost prohibitive contract. We can sign him for what he is worth and look at free agents. I think the Pacers give Tyler a chance to prove himself at PF this year so I think they will take George or Aminu if they keep the pick or trade down for a PG. If they can get Collison without losing #10 then they take George or Aminu if he falls.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X