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

Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 FINAL, POST 1 UPDATED

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

  • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

    If the draft shakes out like this later this month, would 19, 31, & 33 plus a protected 2015 first be enough to climb back to six and get Otto Porter?

    The Cavs could put a lineup of Kyrie Irving, Dion Waiters, Otto Porter, Tristan Thompson, and Nerlens Noel on the floor. Their average age couldn't even legally buy a beer but they'd seem to fit together well.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

      Didn't see it posted yet, but Mackey Rose is on the clock

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

        So appearently Dario Saric is out of the draft. I think he would've been my pick. Why would he withdraw when he seems a lottery lock, maybe even mid lotto? It makes no sense to wait for the loaded 2014 draft.

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        If the draft shakes out like this later this month, would 19, 31, & 33 plus a protected 2015 first be enough to climb back to six and get Otto Porter?

        The Cavs could put a lineup of Kyrie Irving, Dion Waiters, Otto Porter, Tristan Thompson, and Nerlens Noel on the floor. Their average age couldn't even legally buy a beer but they'd seem to fit together well.
        I doubt it. I wonder if one of the top 3-4 (or so) teams would consider Derrick Williams + Wolves' #9 for their pick? I think McLemore or Porter would be worth it for the Wolves.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

          Mackey_Rose is on the clock. It's getting close to skip time. It's been 14-15 hours now but we'll wait 3-4 more hours since it's early morning in Indiana.

          In case he doesn't show up, is there anyone who missed out on the draft and wants to join and represent the Pelicans?


          PS: According to espn, Dario Saric is still in the draft. He will stay in the draft if he gets a promise from a lotto team but he wants to stay in Europe for a year. So, if a lotto team wants to make that promise, he's eligible.
          Last edited by hackashaq; 06-13-2013, 07:25 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
            Mackey_Rose is on the clock. It's getting close to skip time. It's been 14-15 hours now but we'll wait 3-4 more hours since it's early morning in Indiana.

            In case he doesn't show up, is there anyone who missed out on the draft and wants to join and represent the Pelicans?


            PS: According to espn, Dario Saric is still in the draft. He will stay in the draft if he gets a promise from a lotto team but he wants to stay in Europe for a year. So, if a lotto team wants to make that promise, he's eligible.
            From a lotto team. Hahahaha Good luck. I do hope he does though, cause that only helps the Pacers out.
            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: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

              Several lottery teams are rumored to love him. But the one year in Europe thing is likely to hurt. He should've just pulled Fran Vasquez and made that decision to come to the NBA or not after the draft.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                Mackey_Rose is on the clock. It's getting close to skip time. It's been 14-15 hours now but we'll wait 3-4 more hours since it's early morning in Indiana.

                In case he doesn't show up, is there anyone who missed out on the draft and wants to join and represent the Pelicans?


                PS: According to espn, Dario Saric is still in the draft. He will stay in the draft if he gets a promise from a lotto team but he wants to stay in Europe for a year. So, if a lotto team wants to make that promise, he's eligible.
                Wow, getting serious.

                In the best news to hit the NBA in the last decade or so, we, the New Orleans Hornets decided to change our name to the Pelicans. Think about that. There is a professional sports franchise in the United States named the Pelicans. God Bless America!

                The Pelicans are in an interesting position. We don't have very much money wrapped up long term in anybody, except Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, and Anthony Davis's #1 pick rookie contract. We tried to find a sucker to take on Doc River's kid for a gently used laundry machine, but nobody bit. So we've got him for at least another year. Unless he does a total 180 from last year, I would not be picking up his option, and would just cut my losses. That won't happen. Even if he is as bad as he was in 2012-2013, and he was historically bad, he will get his option exercised because we foolishly used a lottery pick on him.

                This is probably the easiest pick of the draft so far. We considered the Cavs offer of their next 3 picks, and a future (non-2014, which was a deal breaker) 1st round pick for our #6, but the drop down to #19 was just too much to absorb. We have a lot of needs, but we don't think there will be enough quality at the 19, 31, and 33 picks to make up for giving up #6. If the guy we wanted all along wasn't on the board, that might have been a different story.

                The front court is at least decent with the Brow, Ryan Anderson, and Sideshow Robin Lopez. Davis has a chance to be an elite defensive player, and has all the necessary ability to become a solid offensive player. He's very skilled for a big guy, and as he adds to his game, he could become the franchise player we've needed since Chris Paul demanded a trade. That trade, while necessary, created many new and different problems for us. Thanks to David Stern's "basketball reasons," we got the serious shaft in the deal. We essentially traded Chris Paul for Al-Farouq Aminu, and a maxed out Eric Gordon. I guess that's what we get for allowing David Stern to run our team. Sure, Gordon didn't have that contract when he came here, but what were we going to do, not keep the guy we traded the best point guard of a generation for? Talk about being put in between a rock, and a hard place.

                Just a few years ago, we had Chris Paul running our team, and killing it on the pick and roll with David West. Now we have Greivis Vasquez starting at point guard, and while he isn't CP3, (who is?) he's surprisingly effective. He's a very good distributor, and we think if we could put better players around him, he'd be good enough to take us into the playoffs, but that's probably not happening this season. If there was a better option out there, and we thought maybe we'd get a shot at Trey Burke, we'd have no problem drafting a potential replacement and bring Vasquez off the bench. He's good, but he's definitely not irreplaceable. With Burke going much higher than we thought he would, we won't even be considering any of the other point guards in this draft.

                One of those players we'd like to put next to Vasquez, is Eric Gordon. Talk about frustrating. We have committed $58+ million to EJ, and we'd love to see him on the floor. When he's healthy, he's been one of the 5 best shooting guards in the game. He is a great shooter, and plays very tough defense. Even if he is a bit undersized, he is able to make up for that lack of height and length, through his athleticism and by being one of the strongest perimeter players in the league. Unfortunately, he just hasn't been able to stay on the floor.

                The other guy we got in the CP3 deal, Al-Farouq Aminu, we didn't even like enough to extend him his 4th year option on his rookie deal. He shows some stunning athleticism on occasion, but he just isn't very good. Between Gordon and Aminu, we obviously need help at the wing positions, more so than any other place on the floor.

                With that in mind, we are going to take the best player left on the board. The New Orleans Pelicans select, Otto Porter, Small Forward from Georgetown.

                We had Porter ranked 4th on our board, behind Oladipo, Noel, and McLemore. He does a little bit of everything, and we think he will be a nice compliment on the perimeter to EJ, if we can ever get him to stay healthy for more than a week. I like the ability and the youth of our core group of Gordon, Porter, Anderson, and Davis. The entire future of this franchise depends on Eric Gordon. We need him on the floor. We just don't have enough scoring without him.

                P_George and the Sacramento Kings are now on the board.
                Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 06-13-2013, 09:06 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                  Nice. The new Sacramento Kings general manager P_George is OTC.

                  It would really suck to skip anyone but we need to do at least 4 picks a day if we are to finish before the draft. Hopefully some of the picks are quick.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                    I'll be on most of the day for my Pistons pick. But I'll be offline as of 3pm (EST) for a looooong flight, so if it's not my turn by then, someone should pick for me. On a related note, if I haven't checked in again before the Pistons' second round picks, someone should do those for me too. I'll have minimal computer access for a week or so as of 3pm (EST) today. Sorry, something came up after I volunteered. But ready to pick most of the afternoon!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      The front court is at least decent with the Brow, Ryan Anderson, and Sideshow Robin Lopez. Davis has a chance to be an elite defensive player, and has all the necessary ability to become a solid offensive player. He's very skilled for a big guy, and as he adds to his game, he could become the franchise player we've needed since Chris Paul demanded a trade. That trade, while necessary, created many new and different problems for us. Thanks to David Stern's "basketball reasons," we got the serious shaft in the deal. We essentially traded Chris Paul for Al-Farouq Aminu, and a maxed out Eric Gordon. I guess that's what we get for allowing David Stern to run our team. Sure, Gordon didn't have that contract when he came here, but what were we going to do, not keep the guy we traded the best point guard of a generation for? Talk about being put in between a rock, and a hard place.
                      Hey, you also got Austin Rivers from that deal so no need to complain!
                      To be fair, it still ended up a much better move than the Rockets/Lakers deal. Imagine, the Hornets could have Goran Dragic as their best player + a bunch of near-washed up veterans and essentially no cap flexibility. They'd be like the Suns. While the Lakers would have CP3, Kobe, Dwight and I wouldn't be surprised if they used the trade exception on someone like Ryan Anderson instead of Steve Nash in that situation.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                        Here's where it gets interesting.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 -- P_GEORGE OTC

                          It seems that the Kings management won't deliver again hehe.
                          P_George has less than an hour. Anyone interested in being the new Kings GM in case he doesn't show up?
                          If not, we'll auto pick but it would be more fun if someone made the pick.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 -- P_GEORGE OTC

                            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                            It seems that the Kings management won't deliver again hehe.
                            P_George has less than an hour. Anyone interested in being the new Kings GM in case he doesn't show up?
                            If not, we'll auto pick but it would be more fun if someone made the pick.
                            I'm already the Suns GM, but if he can't pick I will do it
                            Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 06-13-2013, 08:17 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 -- P_GEORGE OTC

                              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                              I'm already the Suns GM, butif he can't pick I will do it
                              alright, if he doesn't show up till 9, pick for him.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                                As the Kings FO we feel we are certainly not lacking in talent with DeMarcus Cousins and (a re-signed) Tyreke Evans. We feel that as Cousins and Evans mature we can develop into a very good team as long as we surround them with a good supporting cast.

                                One member of that supporting cast that we feel confident in is Isaiah Thomas. though he may be small, we are very pleased with his production and feel he can improve even more because he is only 24. We feel confident with our PG, SG, and C positions moving forward. we also feel there is a very talented player that can solidify our PF position for many years to come

                                With the 7th pick in the 2013 NBA draft the Sacremento Kings select, Anthony Bennett, PF UNLV

                                We feel like Bennett is a very talented player and has the potential to become a star player in this league. if everyone develops right, we think we can have a big 3 if our own in DeMarcus Cousins, Tyreke Evans, And Anthony Bennett. We love the potential of an Isaiah Thomas and Anthony Bennett pick and roll and feel he can terrorize opposing defenses with his jump shot and his face up game. Though he may be a bit undersized we feel the NBA is moving away from the traditional big line-ups and teams are now going small and athletic. We truly feel we are acquiring a young, potential star in Bennett and we feel we have the potential to have on of the best PF-C combos in the NBA in Cousins and Bennett.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X