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

Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

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

  • #16
    Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

    Originally posted by BornReady View Post
    There's no way the Pacers would get rid of Granger and West's consistent, veteran, and positive contribution for the prospect of Williams figuring out his game.
    Yeah I agree. Just saying that it's not a good idea to actually get him because he won't develop as much if he's playing behind Granger or West (or even PG right now as he's playing SF too) unless one of them is going to be let go.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

      I think there's still some hope for Derrick Williams, as a change of scenery may do him wonders. However, Wes Johnson wasn't that good to begin with.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

        these tweener forwards can be very useful coming off the bench. Take a look at how well Young from Philly is doing.
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

          Marcus Fizer, Stromile Swift, Ike Diogu, and Jonny Flynn were all successful college players that were drafted in the lottery and they turned out to be flops. It happens all the time.

          Wesley Johnson is most likely a bust. If he can't score in Phoenix's wide open style of offense I'm not sure he can play in the NBA.

          I think Derrick Williams could still be a good and effective player. He's probably better at PF but with Love on the team his playing time and development will be limited.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

            Wes Johnson is behind Michael Beasley AND PJ Tucker in the Suns rotation. If we want him, we might be able to pick him up off waivers next season. But why? We already have PG, Granger and Gerald that all play the 3.

            I'd be willing to roll the dice on Derrick Williams. He has shown some signs but 21 is too early to write him off. If MIN would take some combination of Hans/DJ/future #1 I would probably do it. If West signs for next season, he isn't getting any younger. It'd be nice to have another PF (with some upside, unlike Hans) waiting in the wings.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

              I'm keen on alec Burks from Utah he's in a similar situation

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                I thought Wes Johnson would be a bust before he was drafted, but that was for the wrong reason, I think a lot has to do with how they have been used by their teams, both guys were do it all guys in college contributing in multiple ways, in the NBA they have not been asked to do that, and become less dimensional, because of this they come of as unproductive especially seeing how high they were drafted.

                Only two things I think can save them, better coaching that allows them to uses their skill set and still fit in with the team, or for them to improve in the situations they are in.... Remember this is kind of the same thing that happened to Evan Turner, who was a multidimensional player at the college level as well, just glad that he is starting to become productive.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                  I wouldn't write off Williams at this point. After all there is a reason why he went number two overall. The talent is certainly there but for young players to live up to the expectations and reach their ceilings it takes more than talent: work ethic, humility, the right personal environment, the right team, a good coach, a veteran mentor, luck, health, and so on. Williams is on his first team and it doesn't look like it is a good fit up in Minnesota. There is K.Love plugged in at PF and a high fluctuation of player personnel. Minny doesn't have a winning culture and from the outside they seem to lack any kind of hierarchy within the team. So yes, I think a change of scenery would be beneficial and given that the Pacers might move on from Hansbrough after this season, I could see them going after Willaims.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                    Originally posted by Really? View Post
                    I thought Wes Johnson would be a bust before he was drafted, but that was for the wrong reason, I think a lot has to do with how they have been used by their teams, both guys were do it all guys in college contributing in multiple ways, in the NBA they have not been asked to do that, and become less dimensional, because of this they come of as unproductive especially seeing how high they were drafted.

                    Only two things I think can save them, better coaching that allows them to uses their skill set and still fit in with the team, or for them to improve in the situations they are in.... Remember this is kind of the same thing that happened to Evan Turner, who was a multidimensional player at the college level as well, just glad that he is starting to become productive.
                    I was hoping they'd sell low on him and the Pacers come in and get him. However, I'm glad he's turned it around.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                      I think Wes Johnson is finished as a regular NBA player. He could hang around as a 9th or 10th man, but he just isn't really good at any particular thing. I watched almost every game he played during his first two seasons and there were barely flashes of productivity on either end. Seemed lost frequently on defense and couldn't even hit most of his wide open looks. Maybe a coach like Pop could turn him around, but I have very little faith that he'll ever be a 20MPG player.

                      Also, based on what I've heard from Minnesota fans and reporters, it sounds like the Wolves aren't trading Derrick unless they're getting a bonafide starter/6th man in return. I've heard that they are targeting JJ Redick.
                      Last edited by spreedom; 01-02-2013, 09:47 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                        Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                        I think Wes Johnson is finished as a regular NBA player. He could hang around as a 9th or 10th man, but he just isn't really good at any particular thing. I watched almost every game he played during his first two seasons and there were barely flashes of productivity on either end. Seemed lost frequently on defense and couldn't even hit most of his wide open looks. Maybe a coach like Pop could turn him around, but I have very little faith that he'll ever be a 20MPG player.

                        Also, based on what I've heard from Minnesota fans and reporters, it sounds like the Wolves aren't trading Derrick unless they're getting a bonafide starter/6th man in return. I've heard that they are targeting JJ Redick.
                        Good point about WJ. He was supposed to be a good shooter/scorer coming out of college but in the NBA he can't hit open shots or get his shot off if he's defended well. He's been a major disappointment.

                        I could possibly see Minny being interested in a Gerald Green and a draft pick for Derrick Williams. They still need help at the 2 and at SF especially since Brandon Roy is still semi-retired.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                          Why have these 2 in the title together. They are light years away from one another. Wes suxs and Derrick can ball. Wes is obtainable in the summer on the cheap and Derrick is out of reach for this team. Pacers aren't gonna give up good pieces for Derrick.
                          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                            Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                            As a cuse fan I have to say that I'm partial to Wes and I'd welcome him coming to Indy. That being said, Wes really hasn't done much to impress me in the NBA - he's been quite terrible to be honest.
                            I do think if we did have the opportunity we should grab Derrick Williams to come off the bench, but at the expense of Pendy and certainly not Young. Young has been great for us, while Pendy is...yikes.
                            Wes has issues similar to Earl Clark where they both thrived on defense by having good length in a zone defense that allowed for them to attack ball rotations for steals. Neither showed great 1 on 1 defensive ability. Wes was not really a pure shooter like a Reggie, so he needed to come in and be more of an all-purpose "length" player (like Paul George) which isn't really what he did in college.

                            So he doesn't really rebound at a high rate, doesn't shoot killer long range rates, doesn't really facilitate or ball handle well and isn't a great 1 on 1 defender. He's just okay to sub-par in a lot of areas without a specific benefit area that would make you overlook some weaknesses. And note that in Clark's case the NBA has pushed him to be more of a big and less of a wing as a means of remaining in the league.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                              I didn't realize Earl Clark was on the Lakers now. He showed a little life down in Orlando towards the end of last year, enough I wouldn't have minded him as minimum bench fodder, now he's stuck on the bench again.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Wes Johnson and Derrick Williams

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                I didn't realize Earl Clark was on the Lakers now. He showed a little life down in Orlando towards the end of last year, enough I wouldn't have minded him as minimum bench fodder, now he's stuck on the bench again.

                                Basically, Clark and McBob swapped teams. McBob is in Orlando. The rookie Nicholson is getting more PT than McBob. Nicholson is doing well for a rookie. He's one player that was of interest in the draft, but wasn't going to fall to the Pacers.

                                Looking at drafting Plumjam, there wasn't a lot available at the #26 pick. If you were just going to take a flyer maybe PJ III, Marquis Teague, or Jeff Taylor. I just don't see Plumjam being a contributing player for the future. I was in favor of trading out of that draft, and voiced that opinion.

                                The best move MJ has made in a draft is that he didn't take Robinson, and he took MKG. Sullinger at #21 looks to be a better pick than Robinson at #5. Although it's still too early to tell.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X