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

Consensus Mock Draft 2012

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

  • #31
    Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

    I've read this board for a long time but have finally decided to join, partially to help with Jenkins, Taylor, and Ezeli. I have had season tickets for the past three years, so I know a little about them.

    Taylor will not be there at 26 unfortunately, the Cavs like him but he has been told that he is a late lottery player. Over this past season he progressed more than any player I've ever seen from one season to another. He developed a very nice shooting touch and actually improved on his driving ability. (He is the top dunker in this draft. He cut his head on the Rim at one point during his tenure at Vandy.)

    Jenkins is the best shooter in the nation. For that reason alone I wish the Pacers would draft him! Literally people celebrate as he releases the ball (which he does extremely fast), they don't wait until it goes in. The reason he isn't a lottery pick is because he isn't too quick and his defense isn't his strong point. But he has the best shooting touch I've ever seen! It's truly amazing...

    Ezeli had a rough year because of a torn MCL, he was a sure fire lottery pick before the injury. He is a huge body, and plays great defense. His offensive game had improved A LOT but the injury slowed him down. Reports are saying he looks like the old Ezeli again though so we'll see.

    Taylor will be gone, I want Jenkins, we should and could (maybe) get Ezeli.

    GO DORES!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

      Ugh I just spent 15 minutes describing each of the three Vandy players on my IPhone and I cannot find my post anywhere..

      Summary*

      I have read the board for a long time, but finally decided to post for this purpose.

      ** Taylor will be gone. Great slasher and finisher (best dunker in draft.) has recently developed a nice jump shot..

      ** Jenkins is by far the best shooter in this draft, and yes I said BY FAR.

      ** Ezeli is a huge body that plays great defense. An MCL tear caused him to have a rough senior season.

      I hope my first post shows up at some point

      GO DORES!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

        If the Pacers came away with 2 players on my list, I'd be thrilled. Granted, the Pacers would have to buy or trade for another late first/early 2nd round pick.

        Quincy Miller
        Royce White
        Jeff Taylor
        Doron Lamb
        Darius Miller
        Jae Crowder

        Those are my favs right now. I really like Crowder cause he has such a high BBIQ and a good defender, that I think he'll find a way to transition to SG/SF instead of PF/SF.
        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

          With Roy Hibbert being a restricted free-agent, Foster retired, Amundson just a hussle guy (unrestricted) and Fesenko an anomaly (unrestricted) the biggest need for the Pacers is a back-up big man.

          The two guys that may be there at 26 is FAB MELO & FESTUS EZELI. Most likely Fab will be gone by the time we pick. He is mostly just a shot blocker with no real offensive game. He's from Brazil which would be funny if we resign Barbosa.

          Festus Ezeli has a good chance to be our pick. He is a big 6'11" 255lbs and has a good right hand hook. He looks like the kind of guy that would be perfect buddies with Roy on and off the court. Roy can play 30+ minutes and have Festus pick up the next 18 or so. Sounds like a good tag team.

          It doesn't look like any quality power forwards are going to fall down to us. I don't like Royce White, he has attitude problems and he's more of a combo forward. Andrew Nicholson is skilled but is a power forward in a small forward body.

          If we can't get a big man there are six quality small forwards in this draft. If QUINCY MILLER or JEFF TAYLOR slip down to us, that would be a great pick up.

          If Ezeli or Taylor is already gone by the time we pick we may go shooting guard. Doron Lamb is undersized but can shoot and Evan Fournier has good size, can score but can he defend.

          I don't really see us going point guard in this draft. Marquis Teague is an Indiana boy but is he really that much better than Collison. Tony Wroten has great size and left hand going to the hoop but I would be surprised if we went that way.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

            Originally posted by Marlin View Post
            I'm not so much into college basketball, so I'll ask:

            who is the best shooter projected at about our range?

            any chance a sharpshooter falls to us?
            John Jenkins. that's about all he does, but he's about the best in college at it, if not the best. Absolutely pure shooter.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

              Originally posted by rousea24 View Post
              Lamb will likely go toward the end of the top 10 picks.
              Maybe Jeremy Lamb. If a GM drafts Doron Lamb in the lottery, he's likely working on unemployment.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                I at least feel good that Bird has the chance to pick up a quality bench player in this draft. I do wish he'd buy/trade for an early 2nd. Loads of talent in this draft.
                I agree....I totally think that some 1st Round talent that isn't as "flashy" but solid that will fall. I really hope that we go after a 2nd round pick to pick one of those Players that drop.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I agree....I totally think that some 1st Round talent that isn't as "flashy" but solid that will fall. I really hope that we go after a 2nd round pick to pick one of those Players that drop.
                  Will Buford or Darius Miller? Well, they aren't necessarily surefire 1st round guys, but I think they will have solid pro careers off the bench.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                    Will Buford or Darius Miller? Well, they aren't necessarily surefire 1st round guys, but I think they will have solid pro careers off the bench.
                    I dont see Buford being that successful I dont think most of his game transfers especially on defense. Also I want to see him play vs elite athletes every night his athleticism may limit him. Miller I think will translate solid defense and can shoot solid glue guy.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                      Originally posted by Marlin View Post
                      I'm not so much into college basketball, so I'll ask:

                      who is the best shooter projected at about our range?

                      any chance a sharpshooter falls to us?
                      Originally posted by Vandy View Post
                      I've read this board for a long time but have finally decided to join, partially to help with Jenkins, Taylor, and Ezeli. I have had season tickets for the past three years, so I know a little about them.

                      Taylor will not be there at 26 unfortunately, the Cavs like him but he has been told that he is a late lottery player. Over this past season he progressed more than any player I've ever seen from one season to another. He developed a very nice shooting touch and actually improved on his driving ability. (He is the top dunker in this draft. He cut his head on the Rim at one point during his tenure at Vandy.)

                      Jenkins is the best shooter in the nation. For that reason alone I wish the Pacers would draft him! Literally people celebrate as he releases the ball (which he does extremely fast), they don't wait until it goes in. The reason he isn't a lottery pick is because he isn't too quick and his defense isn't his strong point. But he has the best shooting touch I've ever seen! It's truly amazing...

                      Ezeli had a rough year because of a torn MCL, he was a sure fire lottery pick before the injury. He is a huge body, and plays great defense. His offensive game had improved A LOT but the injury slowed him down. Reports are saying he looks like the old Ezeli again though so we'll see.

                      Taylor will be gone, I want Jenkins, we should and could (maybe) get Ezeli.

                      GO DORES!
                      Thanks for joining, and giving the insight from a Vandy fan that went to games, I am with you on everything you said besides the Jenkins in late-lottery, while I think he has a chance to get up there I will also say that area is deep and a lot of the separation will happen after private workouts an the draft combine are done. If he really shows up and out plays some guys I think he can get up there, if not he sill probably go somewhere in the next 9 picks after the lottery is over.

                      Thanks again
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                        I know neither plays a position of need, but I'd like (Jeremy) Lamb or (preferably) Austin Rivers on this team. I'd love the Pacers to get one of them and work out the minutes later. It would mean one of DC/GH leaves, but I think that's a given anyway. Ideally we'd be able to draft a high-assist point guard, but considering where we're currently picking it doesn't look too likely, so I'd like a guy who can knock down shots in bulk.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                          Originally posted by Vandy View Post
                          Taylor will not be there at 26 unfortunately, the Cavs like him but he has been told that he is a late lottery player. Over this past season he progressed more than any player I've ever seen from one season to another. He developed a very nice shooting touch and actually improved on his driving ability. (He is the top dunker in this draft. He cut his head on the Rim at one point during his tenure at Vandy.)
                          Taylor interests me most of the players who could be available in this range. Taylor and White both have lots of talent, but with Taylor we don't have to worry about the personality/character concerns. Talyor would be my top choice at #26. I expect Taylor to be chosen a few spots before Indiana picks, but terrific players have fallen to the Pacers before. Our top two players, Granger and Hibbert, were picked at #17 if memory serves.

                          If Bird decides to trade up, I'd want Moultrie. If I had a mid-1st round pick, Moultrie would definitely be the guy I'd select. Pretty easy choice in my view. Austin Rivers wouldn't be a bad choice, either.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                            I know neither plays a position of need, but I'd like (Jeremy) Lamb or (preferably) Austin Rivers on this team. I'd love the Pacers to get one of them and work out the minutes later. It would mean one of DC/GH leaves, but I think that's a given anyway. Ideally we'd be able to draft a high-assist point guard, but considering where we're currently picking it doesn't look too likely, so I'd like a guy who can knock down shots in bulk.
                            Lamb is probably early teens if not top 10, Rivers probably top 15, but yup I think it would be DC that would be leaving, more trade value. But yeah if you would like to trade up that far to get one of them, you could also make a push at Marshall who will be going around the same range as Rivers.
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                              Anyone willing to bet for or against Boston taking Austin if he is still on the board when they draft?

                              My guess... They do!
                              Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Consensus Mock Draft 2012

                                Originally posted by J7F View Post
                                Anyone willing to bet for or against Boston taking Austin if he is still on the board when they draft?

                                My guess... They do!
                                Boston won't get that opportunity. He won't be on the board.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X