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 2.0

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

  • #91
    Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

    I'm not as down on this draft as most.

    Is it bad for the lottery teams? Yes but that doesn't mean there isn't some good talent especially in the middle of the first round.

    I really think that Chris Singleton could be a good fit. Some have said the Pacers should go after Josh Smith and I think that Chris Singleton brings similar things to the table that Josh does. Singleton has excellent athleticism and can guard multiple positions.

    There are other guys that can help too like the Morris twins and wing players like Kawhi Leonard and Tyler Honeycutt.

    I am not saying that any of these guys are going to be starters. I do think there will be several guys on the board at 15 who can be productive for the Pacers.

    Trading the pick is a popular option but we have to remember that we are not the only ones who views this draft as a weakness. About the only hope is there is a GM who is in love with a player on the board at 15 and they have something the Pacers need. That's not likely to happen. I think it will be much easier for the Pacers to find a prospect they like than it will be to find a trade. I'm not saying I think the Pacers will get a starter at 15. Just saying that it is likely they will have to keep the pick and that the available players probably won't be all that bad.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      I guarantee you that Jimmer won't get past us in this draft...
      That's my greatest fear related to his draft.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

        My reaction if Kemba Walker falls to us, he's just what our bench needs:

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

          The Cavs need to make a splash. The are gonna have to come away with known commodities to sell to the fanbase. Therefore I predict, no I guarantee that the Cavs will select Derrick Williams #1. Why, you ask? 2 reasons.

          1. Williams is the most gifted player in this draft. He immediately steps into the void left by LeBron.

          2. This shakes things up. Will Minny draft Irving while trying to lure Rubio at the same time? Do they trade the pick? Do they pass on him entirely for another player?

          Drafting Williams #1 causes a ripple effect on the top 4 picks. Irving or Knight will fall into their laps at #4. If not the can take Kemba Walker, who in my opion is a better value at 4.

          Long story short, Williams and Walker trumps Irving and Vesley.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

            Originally posted by idioteque View Post
            My reaction if Kemba Walker falls to us, he's just what our bench needs:

            that's too funny! Thanks for the laugh

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

              So many things.

              Wasn't big on Faried but I think it would be a quality pick.

              But if we stay at the pic I could def see the pacers taking a look at Donatas Motiejunas... I know I am probably the minority again but the dude is tall, long, can hit shots from all over, 3pt line and in the post and has a mid range game, can get some rebounds but thats not really his game... does block though... I know it is a stretch but I could see his potential as a Dirk type player... especially if he gets stronger, but the guy just keeps getting better and better...I think he will turnout to be one of the best players to come out of this draft...and I know we need rebounding but to get a player like that, with his upside, I wouldn't even be trippen.

              Wouldn't mind Jimmer either, wasn't a big fan of him either but could you imagine having him coming off the bench, especially when u need scoring. Bigger taller marcus thornton with deeper range.

              But I would also be interesting in a long PG especially if he could play PG/SG at times. Possibly even trade back and try to grab a extra 2nd rd pic, I thing Darius Morris and the guy from BC would be good pick ups as well as Marshon.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                Most recent video that I have seen of Donatas

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqK-YXlsHs
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                  he reminds me a lot of a young rasheed wallace, in terms of his skill set. He can do just about anything outside of rebound well.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                    that's too funny! Thanks for the laugh
                    What's even funnier is that your profile pic of Tyler looks like the guy in that video.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      Why are people so opposed to George being the starting SG?
                      People are stuck on size. George is 6'8 so it doesn't matter to them that he can guard people on the perimeter and give us a huge advantage there. Nope, he's 6'8 so in their mind he's a small forward. Period.

                      My thinking is we are set at the swing positions. We could be better at the other three positions but we have young people there that could grow into their position. What we need is what Bird has been emphasizing, a big guy than can defend and rebound, someone that can get their own shot at the end of games and a second scorer to help Danny.

                      Now it seems to me that one of are other starters could grow into our 2nd scorer, so we need the big guy and a guy that can get his own shot.

                      If we can't trade out of the draft it seems to me we will get someone to booster the second unit like Bird has said.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                        Originally posted by thefeistyone View Post
                        I'm kinda partial to Reggie Jackson, I don't know if we can trade back to get him. There really isn't much reason for teams to trade up to 15. The idea of having a bigger pg with a 7 foot wingspan is very appealing to me. Most teams don't look to improve rebounding from the point guard position, but watching Westbrook and Rose rebound all post season is kind of refreshing. I know he isn't as good as those guys, but he is an athletic big pg.
                        Although a "Mr. October" is more useful in MLB than in the NBA

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                          Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                          What's even funnier is that your profile pic of Tyler looks like the guy in that video.
                          Well Tyler did have the nice shimmy at the Fan Jam his rookie year

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post

                            But if we stay at the pic I could def see the pacers taking a look at Donatas Motiejunas... I know I am probably the minority again but the dude is tall, long, can hit shots from all over, 3pt line and in the post and has a mid range game, can get some rebounds but thats not really his game... does block though... I know it is a stretch but I could see his potential as a Dirk type player... especially if he gets stronger, but the guy just keeps getting better and better...I think he will turnout to be one of the best players to come out of this draft...and I know we need rebounding but to get a player like that, with his upside, I wouldn't even be trippen.
                            I don't really think he'll fall out of the top 10. But if he does fall to our pick, he's almost certainly BPA.

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            he reminds me a lot of a young rasheed wallace, in terms of his skill set. He can do just about anything outside of rebound well.
                            A Rasheed Wallace AND a Ben Wallace in this year's draft? Who said this draft wasn't deep? But seriously, if you could get Bismack and Donatas together, they'd make a pretty nice frontcourt combo.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                              Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                              What's even funnier is that your profile pic of Tyler looks like the guy in that video.
                              The guy in the video is not other but Jean Claude Van Damme
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford Mock Draft 2.0

                                I am still completely on the fence for this draft. As noted, this draft is weak, and if we can trade the pick for someone valuable, including a pick in next year's draft, I say go for it.

                                However, after scanning some mocks and doing my own bit of research, I can't help but get attached to some of these guys. The biggest issue are the weaknesses of each player, which in my opinion outweigh some of the positives.

                                Kenneth Faried
                                Athletic and strong, and after watching this video, I'm impressed with his physical and basketball abilities. However, he's 6'8" and that's undersized, especially when our other power forward option is 6'9" Hansbrough, and Granger, George, and Posey are the same height as Faried. We don't need to resort to "small ball" again, but if Faried happens to grow even a couple more inches, I'd be more keen to take him.

                                Reggie Jackson
                                Okay, 6'3" point guard with a 7' wingspan. That should be the primary reason to pick this kid. He's athletic, he's decently fast, and he's a ballhawk, comparable to George (from highlights I've seen, that is). His bigger frame would be a great backup to Collison, which is something we desperately need. Here's my issue with him: I'm still not sure picking him would be worth spending our 15th pick, when it could potentially be used for something greater. I'd be happy to take him, but as I said, I'm not completely sold yet.

                                Nolan Smith
                                This kid has potential to be very useful, in the same way Jackson does. I'm not sure about his wingspan, but he's also 6'3", and that body is something our bench could use. He can hustle, which is great for fast breaks. He also has a smooth stroke, can hit distance shots, and can finish in the paint. But having known even less about this prospect than many of the others, I wouldn't trust to pick him in the middle of the draft.

                                These three players are those which I am highest on. Jimmer (besides being overrated) doesn't play defense, neither of the Morris twins impress me, and Jeremy Tyler looks to be a weaker, less-skilled Perry Jones (wherein, I would rather wait to get Perry Jones).

                                More and more anticipation building for this offseason. I just hope we don't waste this pick on something we'll just regret in two or three years (i.e. Brandon Rush, imo).
                                witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                                Originally posted by Day-V
                                In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                                Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X