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

ESPN Insider: Time to step up

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

  • ESPN Insider: Time to step up

    Hey can someone please post the new ESPN Insider article that talks about 6 players 25 and under that are going to have a make-or-break season next year? I'm kind of curious as to whether or not Paul George is mentioned at all (though I doubt it)

    It'd be greatly appreciated.

  • #2
    Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

    yea, Paul George is not mentioned but here it is

    Although hope springs eternal in the world of sports, especially when it comes to the untapped potential of youth, the actual facts have a sobering way of tempering expectations for a player's career arc. In terms of per-possession advanced stats, the average player improves quickly in his early 20s; development then slows and ultimately stalls at age 26, the most common peak season. From that point on, it's a long march downhill toward retirement, with each year bringing more age-related decay than the previous one.

    Which is to say that young players, even those with great draft pedigrees, need to show more than just flashes of potential by the time they hit their mid-20s, or they run the risk of never turning into the players they once seemed certain to become.

    We're going to focus on six such players, all 25 or younger, who were top-10 draft picks and have not consistently lived up to their pre-draft billing … yet. The 2012-13 season may or may not be their "make-or-break" campaign, but if it isn't, it's pretty close. These players still have a chance to change their legacies, but as of last season, they're not yet where they need to be.

    Michael Beasley, PF/SF
    2013 Age: 24
    On pace for: 12.7 Career VORP
    (A No. 2 overall pick should have a 32.7 career VORP)

    As hard as it is to remember now, there was legitimate debate in the summer of 2008 over whether the Bulls should take Beasley or Derrick Rose with the top overall pick in the draft. Obviously, Chicago made the right call -- Rose blossomed into an MVP, while Beasley has struggled to find any rhythm as a pro.


    Beasley
    Beasley clearly has a knack for creating shots, but all too often they've been low-percentage looks of the dreaded midrange variety. He also compounds that deficiency with tunnel vision and poor rebounding numbers for his size, somewhat of a surprise given his knack for it in college. His problem is that of the classic "tweener" -- he still doesn't have a true position. Although Beasley's pure offensive skills seem best suited for small forward, historically he's performed much better on offense while playing power forward. Yet power forward is also a position in which Beasley struggles to match up physically with his counterparts on defense.

    The Suns, Beasley's third team in five years, are hoping they can accomplish something neither the Miami Heat nor Minnesota Timberwolves could do before them: translate Beasley's raw talent into on-court performance. If they can't, Beasley probably won't ever deliver on the promise that once made him the second pick in the draft.

    Evan Turner, SG
    2013 Age: 24
    On pace for: 13.3 Career VORP
    (A No. 2 overall pick should have a 32.7 career VORP)

    In terms of point differential, the 2012 Philadelphia 76ers were as good as any Philadelphia squad since the 2001 Finals team. And just think how good they'd have been if they hadn't seemingly whiffed on the second overall pick in the 2010 draft.


    Turner
    OK, so maybe Turner hasn't quite been a total bust, but he's contributed very little to Philly's cause in his first two NBA seasons. A career per-36-minute average of 12.1 points (compiled while taking 18.6 percent of the team's shots when on the floor) undermines Turner's pre-draft billing as a pure scorer/shot creator. His rebounding has been strong for a guard, but his defense and shooting have been mediocre; plus his floor game is nowhere near as good as advertised.

    It might well be too early to write Turner off completely, but the initial returns have him tracking for a career that falls well short of what you want out of a No 2 pick.

    Wesley Johnson, SG/SF
    2013 Age: 25
    On pace for: 8.4 Career VORP
    (A No. 4 overall pick should have a 25.9 career VORP)

    In retrospect, Johnson was pretty clearly a reach at No. 4 in the 2010 draft, especially considering he went right before two big men who are likely future All-Stars, DeMarcus Cousins and Greg Monroe. Despite his advanced age for a rookie (23) in 2010-11, Johnson did not impress at either end of the floor, and he followed that up with a sophomore campaign that can be described only as atrocious, putting up an 8.0 PER and ranking in the bottom quarter of NBA players according to Regularized Plus/Minus.


    Johnson
    Johnson wasn't a great scorer in college, and he's been downright bad as a pro (11.2 points per 36 minutes on 17.5 percent of team shots while on the floor). That fact alone wasn't altogether unexpected, but his over-reliance on the jump shot, his near total inability to get to the basket and his lack of versatility were extremely disappointing for a player who once drew Shawn Marion comparisons.

    Like Beasley, Johnson will have the chance to find a more suitable role in Phoenix. That's good, because he has to change something if he wants to avoid going down as one of the biggest draft busts of the decade.

    John Wall, PG
    2013 Age: 22
    On pace for: 28.6 Career VORP
    (A No. 1 overall pick should have a 39.5 career VORP)

    In some ways Wall is a special case here, seeing that his NBA supporting cast thus far has included a generous helping of Nick Young, Andray Blatche and Rashard Lewis. Having said that, though, Wall hasn't yet produced at a level that would indicate he's going to someday match the careers of Rose or Kyrie Irving, the other point guards recently drafted first overall.


    Wall
    For instance, even after an injury-shortened 2012 season, Rose is well on his way to outpacing the expected career value of a No. 1 overall pick. And Irving's impressive rookie year gives us reason to believe his ceiling is as high as Rose's, if not higher.

    Wall absolutely has the physical tools to be in that group, but he needs to cut down on his turnovers and improve his horrid midrange shooting stroke. He made just 29.7 percent of his shots from 10-23 feet last year (compare to Irving's 38.6 percent clip and the league-average rate of 39.3 percent). If Wall can make those improvements, he'll reclaim his place among the league's great young point guards, but he needs to start heading down that path soon if he wants to stay on that track.

    Al-Farouq Aminu, SF
    2013 Age: 22
    On pace for: 9.2 Career VORP
    (A No. 8 overall pick should have a 19.1 career VORP)

    Aminu came into the league with the expectation that he'd eventually become a Josh Smith or Thaddeus Young type of tweener-but-in-a-good-way forward. Defensively, he has not been too far from that archetype, but rebounding numbers aside, he hasn't really provided anywhere near the level of all-around versatility you'd expect from those pre-draft comparisons.


    Aminu
    The big thing holding Aminu back is his offensive game, or lack thereof. Even acknowledging that his scoring numbers were never supposed to blow anyone away, he has scored 10.5 career points per 36 minutes and has created precious few scoring chances for himself or others. Part of that can be chalked up to bad finishing; among regular forwards in 2011-12, he had the league's eighth-worst field goal percentage on attempts at the rim.

    It should be noted that Aminu isn't an outright bad player. After taking his defense into account, he actually had a positive Regularized Plus/Minus last season. But with a lifetime PER of 10.1, he's definitely on pace to be something of a bust relative to where he was drafted.

    O.J. Mayo, SG
    2013 Age: 25
    On pace for: 20.3 Career VORP
    (A No. 3 overall pick should have a 28.7 career VORP)

    The nation's top high school recruit from 2007 showed signs of coming around in 2011-12, but forgive us if we're not convinced Mayo has finally figured things out. After all, he also tantalized in 2009-10, then turned in a disappointing 2010-11 campaign, losing his starting job and putting up a career-low 12.6 PER.


    Mayo
    Mayo is another guy who has the talent to create offense but has been known to fall in love with his jump shot, dragging his efficiency metrics well south of the league average. And while he's improved as a man-to-man defender, his defense within the team concept remains subpar at best.

    This isn't to say Mayo has been a horrible all-around player thus far. Even if he doesn't take the next step, he still has enough skills to forge a future as a solid reserve/borderline starter. But time is running out for Mayo to salvage the star potential he flashed as a highly touted teen.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

      Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
      yea, Paul George is not mentioned but here it is
      I didn't think so, but I was curious nonetheless. I appreciate it!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

        I'm sure everyone here has high expectations for PG this year, but agreed, shouldn't be a 'make or break' year for him. He's still extremely young...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

          Originally posted by rel View Post
          I'm sure everyone here has high expectations for PG this year, but agreed, shouldn't be a 'make or break' year for him. He's still extremely young...
          Lol it's crazy but two players from the same draft class (Wall and Turner) are mentioned in the article.

          I agree with you, much too early to tell. The article was definitely different than what I expected, as it was much more negative than I thought it would be.
          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 08-08-2012, 11:40 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

            It looks like this list, with the exception of Aminu, is about recent Top 5 picks that haven't met expectations.

            I don't think it applies to Paul George, who has met my expectations so far, even if he hasn't quite exceeded them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Lol it's crazy but two players from the same draft class (Wall and Turner) are mentioned in the article.

              I agree with you, much too early to tell. The article was definitely different than what I expected, as it was much more negative than I thought it would be.
              Maybe I'm crazy but I coulda swore Wes Johnson was in that class too.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ESPN Insider: Time to step up

                Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                Maybe I'm crazy but I coulda swore Wes Johnson was in that class too.
                He was, as was Al-Farooq Aminu!

                So basically a bunch of players from the 2010 draft plus Beasely and Mayo.

                Comment

                Working...
                X