Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Draft Grades

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

  • Draft Grades

    I do not put a lot of stock into draft grades, and like to grade drafts three years from now. I do, however, like to get an idea on how people view our picks. As i surfed the web i thought i would share this info. If any of this info is repeat, i apologize, i haven't read in a couple of days.


    Yahoo:

    Indiana Pacers: Paul George(notes), Lance Stephenson(notes), Magnum Rolle(notes)
    Here's my issue with the Tracy McGrady(notes) comparisons for George. Paul is 20 right now, and at that age T-Mac was averaging more than 15 points and six rebounds for a Raptors team that made the playoffs -- with two blocks per game. This was the year before McGrady averaged 27 a game for Orlando. Paul averaged 17 and seven for Fresno State last season, and while his shooting numbers look smoother than a waxed yacht deck, you have to wonder about his motor and his placement on a Pacers team already featuring Danny Granger(notes).To get Stephenson and Rolle in the second round? And the cojones to go after George in spite of Granger's permanence? I dig it.
    It might not work out, but I appreciate the moves.
    Grade: A

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...urn=nba,251378

    WINNER: Paul George

    The unheralded Fresno State swingman looked like an iffy prospect shortly after the college season ended. A string of strong workouts, however, elevated him to the No. 10 pick.

    While it’s uncertain if the Indiana Pacers were disappointed (or glad) local star Gordon Hayward was selected a spot earlier by Utah, they showed some guts
    by selecting George over the likes of Cole Aldrich, Xavier Henry, Ed Davis, Patrick Patterson and Luke Babbitt. Now it’s up to George to prove he’s more than just hype.

    Fortune also smiled on the Pacers, who, sources say, unsuccessfully tried to buy a late first-round pick for $3 million and an early second-rounder for $1.5 million to take Lance Stephenson, a former New York phenom. Despite their failed efforts, Stephenson fell to the Pacers anyway at No. 40.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...rslosers062510

    CBS SPORTS

    Analysis: Larry Bird admitted the club's biggest need was a point guard. With another shooter now onboard, that weakness is even more glaring.

    Grade: F

    http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...verlist_footer

    CNNSI.COM

    The Pacers had hoped to lock up a point guard (the Nets' Devin Harris) and a power forward (Derrick Favors) in one fell swoop when they dangled Danny Granger and the No. 10 pick to Jersey. The Nets didn't bite, though, and Indy was left with Paul George, a late bloomer (he didn't play AAU ball until his senior year of high school) out of Fresno State who compares himself to Tracy McGrady. He's a good transition player who can shoot the three, a must in Jim O'Brien's offense. Indy took a flyer on Lance Stephenson, a good-sized two-guard who lacks many offensive skills, in the second round.

    Grade:B-

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...des/index.html

    NBADRAFT.NET

    Larry Bird took a risk! And then he took another and another! The Pacers are known for drafting proven college players such as Brandon Rush, Tyler Hansbrough and Roy Hibbert. George was a departure from that ideology, one that has left the team mired in mediocrity. He's got great upside and looks a lot like Rudy Gay, but there's understandable concern that he is turnover prone, makes poor decisions and played low level competition at Fresno State. Stephenson could be very good, and at No. 40, his massive risk factor – egotism being the primary concern – is acceptable. Rolle played in the WAC with George but is the type of athlete the Pacers' frontcourt needs. The big question here is, how will George and Danny Granger play together? They share many of the same traits. Still, good – and refreshing – picks from Indiana

    Grade:B+

    http://www.nbadraft.net/2010-nba-draft-grades

    Here is a story on Granger and george: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/arti...er-are-similar

  • #2
    Re: Draft Grades

    Somebody should grade these analyst for once.

    How can anyone grade an unknown is beyond me...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Draft Grades

      I guess Bird was destined to get an F from CBS unless they were able to get John Wall. There were no other incredible PGs in the entire draft.
      Last edited by IndyPacer; 06-27-2010, 11:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Draft Grades

        Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
        I guess Bird was destined to get an F from CBS unless they were able to get John Wall. There were not other incredible PGs in the entire draft.
        You don't know????

        YOu only draft for need.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Draft Grades

          kind of ironic we got an F for drafting Paul George, a non PG, then get an A on Lance Stephenson, a non PG.
          Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Draft Grades

            Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
            I guess Bird was destined to get an F from CBS unless they were able to get John Wall. There were not other incredible PGs in the entire draft.
            I agree. I am far from a Bird fan, but really, what was he supposed to do? Severely overpay or reach for a position of need? The guys who compiled this list really don't know how NBA teams are built.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Draft Grades

              Can anyone post the Nba Draft Grades from ESPN Insider by Chad Ford ? Just want too see his opinion. Thanks

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Draft Grades

                Chad Fords:

                INDIANA PACERS GRADE: B+

                Round 1: Paul George (10)

                Round 2: Lance Stephenson (40), Magnum Rolle (51, obtained from Oklahoma City)

                Analysis: For the past few years, Pacers execs Larry Bird and David Morway have not been swinging for the fences in the draft. Instead they have tried for singles and doubles and, for the most part, they've connected -- the results have been solid, but not game-changing.

                This year, with the Pacers in desperate need of elite talent, they took a different tack, really going for it with an upside pick. In fact, George has as much upside as anyone in the draft not named Wall, Favors or Cousins.

                George reminds some scouts of Tracy McGrady, believe it or not -- as T-Mac was, George is a great athlete with terrific size for his position who can shoot from range and really finish at the basket. At the same time, he hasn't consistently used those tools to dominate, which has led some scouts to compare him, less flatteringly, to Nick Young. His two seasons at Fresno State were underwhelming. Watching George play can leave you exhilarated and frustrated at the same time.

                You could say similar things about Stephenson. He isn't the terrific athlete or great shooter that George is, but he has an NBA body and a power game that's well suited to the league. He too can dazzle you in moments and have you pulling your hair out at other times.

                Rolle was a roll of the dice at 51. He's a terrific athlete and shot blocker who seldom dominated in college the way his talent suggested he could.

                If George and Stephenson get it, Bird and Morway have hit a couple of home runs in the draft.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Draft Grades

                  Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                  kind of ironic we got an F for drafting Paul George, a non PG, then get an A on Lance Stephenson, a non PG.
                  That didn't happen. CBS gave them an F and didn't distinguish between any of the picks.

                  The unheralded Fresno State swingman looked like an iffy prospect shortly after the college season ended. A string of strong workouts, however, elevated him to the No. 10 pick.
                  Awesome, we just won the Joe Alexander award for ignoring a season of results and going with the beauty of a workout.


                  If I were hiring a plumber I'd rather watch him work on jobs for 4 months straight than to go by the written exam I gave him. Aptitude is nice, but performance doing the actual job is much better.



                  I really need to see some outstanding play out of George and Lance in summer league. That's not the final say, but a lackluster effort is going to put this draft into a very dark light. If I just bet the longshot horse I don't want to see it come out of the gate in last place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Draft Grades

                    A+ for the draft. George is going to be an all-star
                    Murph

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Draft Grades

                      Very true. Remember last year when the Jets got Vernon Gholston and the Patriots got Jerod Mayo? Everyone thought that Gholston was going to be incredible and made fun of the Patriots for picking Mayo. A season later, Gholston didn't do anything and Mayo is the defensive rookie of the year.
                      Nitirc Oxide Supplements
                      Free Business Cards

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Draft Grades

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        That didn't happen. CBS gave them an F and didn't distinguish between any of the picks.


                        http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...;pageContainer

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Draft Grades

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          That didn't happen. CBS gave them an F and didn't distinguish between any of the picks.


                          Awesome, we just won the Joe Alexander award for ignoring a season of results and going with the beauty of a workout.


                          If I were hiring a plumber I'd rather watch him work on jobs for 4 months straight than to go by the written exam I gave him. Aptitude is nice, but performance doing the actual job is much better.



                          I really need to see some outstanding play out of George and Lance in summer league. That's not the final say, but a lackluster effort is going to put this draft into a very dark light. If I just bet the longshot horse I don't want to see it come out of the gate in last place.
                          Love your positive outlook...

                          How about we give the guy(s) atleast a year?
                          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Draft Grades

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            That didn't happen. CBS gave them an F and didn't distinguish between any of the picks.


                            Awesome, we just won the Joe Alexander award for ignoring a season of results and going with the beauty of a workout.


                            If I were hiring a plumber I'd rather watch him work on jobs for 4 months straight than to go by the written exam I gave him. Aptitude is nice, but performance doing the actual job is much better.



                            I really need to see some outstanding play out of George and Lance in summer league. That's not the final say, but a lackluster effort is going to put this draft into a very dark light. If I just bet the longshot horse I don't want to see it come out of the gate in last place.
                            yes it did
                            look at round 2 draft grades
                            Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X