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

2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

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

  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    If we're talking about a back-up PG then I'm all for it. Myck Kabongo fits the physical profile of the Pacers so I would have no problem with him.

    But someone talked about finding a PG of the future and transitioning Hill in a 6th man role. That's something I don't agree with. A PG in the vain of Hill and Conley is exactly the kind of PG that the Pacers need.

    For a 6th man, I'd prefer a Guard - Forward type that can score in a combination of ways (3 point shooting, getting to the line or a post-up game).
    Myck has the size the Pacers would want, but he can't hit the 3. Pacers need their pg to be able to knock down long range shots. That's why Hill is so great for the Pacers system.
    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


    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
      Myck has the size the Pacers would want, but he can't hit the 3. Pacers need their pg to be able to knock down long range shots. That's why Hill is so great for the Pacers system.
      Yeah, I agree that our PG needs to hit the 3. It is the best way to make open up space for our post players.

      Is his shot completely broke? I have faith in our shooting coach seeing the improvement of Lance.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

        Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
        I don't buy that Doug McDermott can't change our bench offensively.
        I don't like him as a first rounder though. To me he's among the mid second-rounders who could stick (with Wolters, Kabongo, Snaer, Payne, and very late in the 2nd or as a free agent, Deshaun Thomas). Larkin and Crabb might be in the late 1st/early 2nd mix too.

        This draft seems to have almost no potential stars but a lot of guys who could stick around as rotation players if they are able to find the right situation, and they can be had from about pick 15 up to pick 60 with not a lot of daylight in between them all.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

          Originally posted by Wylder1324 View Post
          IMO finding "X" player of the future should always take priority over a one dimensional player that happens to fit into the current scheme of things….that is unless you have an elite level team that is a top contender for a championship team already. We are not that. This is by far the closest thing we have had to that in quite some time, but we aren't there yet.
          I just don't see Hill as an one dimensional player that happens to fit our current scheme of things

          Originally posted by Wylder1324 View Post
          My interest in Kabongo is as a player that is likely a 3rd string guy that we develop as a potential starter down the road. Do I think he could potentially break that mold sooner than later ? Yes, but realistically I think the idea is to draft him and sign a replacement for Augustin in the short term. I agree we do not currently run a system that relies on the PG in the way that a team with Chris Paul does, but that is because we don't currently employ a PG in that class, not because we simply don't think its a recipe for success. All of that said, I just think that a guy like Kabongo represents a potential low risk HIGH reward type of scenario that late in what is perceived as potentially the weakest draft….ever ?
          I have no problem with the interest in Kabongo. I would welcome him and I'd be glad if we were to groom him right.

          But I disagree with two things:

          1) I sincerely does not believe that a team in which everything revolves around the shortest player on the court (ie. the PG) is going to win a lot of titles.

          2) I do not consider this to be the weakest draft ever. If anything I consider it a pretty deep draft.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            Yeah, I agree that our PG needs to hit the 3. It is the best way to make open up space for our post players.

            Is his shot completely broke? I have faith in our shooting coach seeing the improvement of Lance.
            Nah, if you watch him he has decent enough form. As the Spurs have demonstrated time and again over the years, three point shooting is very much an attainable skill.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Nah, if you watch him he has decent enough form. As the Spurs have demonstrated time and again over the years, three point shooting is very much an attainable skill.
              I tend to agree.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                I didn't mean to come across as insinuating that I thought Hill was a one dimensional player, on the contrary I am a big fan of Hill and love what he has brought to the organization, I hope he is able to get through this nagging injury in the playoffs. As for Kabongo's outside shooting I think it will be fine, that isn't something he has ever been knocked for, his percentages as a freshmen aren't really indicative as his biggest problem was pacing and learning the college game which will make all of your percentages suffer and as a soph he didn't play enough to get into a groove but had some very nice games as a shooter and as Cdash mentioned, his form isn't bad and yes Lance has shown that our coaches are earning their salaries.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                  Originally posted by Wylder1324 View Post
                  As for Kabongo's outside shooting I think it will be fine, that isn't something he has ever been knocked for, his percentages as a freshmen aren't really indicative as his biggest problem was pacing and learning the college game which will make all of your percentages suffer and as a soph he didn't play enough to get into a groove but had some very nice games as a shooter and as Cdash mentioned, his form isn't bad and yes Lance has shown that our coaches are earning their salaries.
                  Yeah, I'm not very worried about Kabongo's shooting either.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Nah, if you watch him he has decent enough form. As the Spurs have demonstrated time and again over the years, three point shooting is very much an attainable skill.
                    IIRC, the Spurs try to draft guys that are very good shooters to begin with. I vaguely remember an interview with Popovich where he said they look for guys with an elite skill vs guys with better all around talent. They take guys that are already good shooters and refine the skill rather than just average shooters and turn them into great shooters.

                    I would rather the Pacers look for a combo guard type that can shoot and handle the ball and turn him into a Pacer PG rather than a college PG that needs to be taught how to shoot.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Yeah, I agree that our PG needs to hit the 3. It is the best way to make open up space for our post players.

                      Is his shot completely broke? I have faith in our shooting coach seeing the improvement of Lance.
                      He also has to be able to penetrate the lane to kick it out as well. With PG and Lance on the perimeter and West in the mid range
                      Smothered Chicken!

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                        “Dumars está absolutamente enamorado de Zeljko Obradovic”,
                        Link

                        Evidently Detroit likes this guy. Who is he?

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                          The McDermott kid from Creighton has decided to stay in school. Apparently, does like being a 2nd rd pick.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                            Russ Smith is going back to Louisville as well.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              The McDermott kid from Creighton has decided to stay in school. Apparently, does like being a 2nd rd pick.
                              He plays for his dad, and this is the last time in his life he will be able to do so. I applaud his decision.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                                Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                                Link

                                Evidently Detroit likes this guy. Who is he?
                                The best coach in Europe.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X