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

Eric Gordon FTW!

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

  • #61
    Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

    Originally posted by Kofi View Post
    .



    Wade was a red shirt freshman. He was also just 19 years, 9 months when he first played a game for Marquette, just 11 months older than Gordon.
    I still don't see how you can say he was as good as Gordon as a freshman. However its clear you don't respond to reason. Considering you didn't even realize you were being lead right into the fact that Wade never played a freshman year.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

      Originally posted by Indy View Post
      I still don't see how you can say he was as good as Gordon as a freshman. However its clear you don't respond to reason. Considering you didn't even realize you were being lead right into the fact that Wade never played a freshman year.
      Red shirt freshman. Look it up.

      I watched the I.U. game tonight, and again, I was less than impressed with E.J. He's got great range, but I see nothing else special about the kid. Lighting up the Big Ten loses some impact when you take a look at everyone who's done it in the past. Studs like Drew Neitzel, A.J. Guyton, Dee Brown, Pierre Pierce etc. Did you know Toronto Raptors megastar Kris Humphries averaged 22 and 11 as a Freshman at Minnesota? That Big Ten, some competition. Personally, Gordon reminds me a lot of Fred Jones, right down to the sloppy ball handling, but with a dash of Ben Gordon thrown in to give you some hope that he'll turn into something special. I'm not guaranteeing he'll be a bust, and if we ended up with him I'd be willing to give him a chance to prove me wrong, but I just don't like the kids overall package. And I think a lot of GM's will agree with me, and Gordon will slip out of the top-5 on draft day.
      Last edited by Kofi; 02-19-2008, 11:09 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

        Redshirt freshman who sat out for academic reasons? Either way you can't compare Wade's freshman year to Gordon's because Wade did not play one.

        And yes there have been many busts (Humphries in particular. However he didn't surprise anyone by being bust he got way too full of himself and made an extremely bad decision) out of the big ten, but you also have Deron Williams, Michael Redd, Devin Harris, Glenn Robinson, Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Jason Richardson, Zach Randolph. Then guys like Oden and Conley last year. Big Ten has had its share of busts and its share of big time players just like every other conference in America.


        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

          Kofi-

          So, if EJ slips all the way out of the top-5 to #6, you'll assume that
          numerous, NBA GM's agree with you that he's destined to be just
          another undersized SG, if not a bust ?

          Right.

          And remind us, which power conference was Wade 'lighting up' in
          his (according to you) supposed stellar 'redshirt' freshman year at
          Marquette (and no, it wasn't in the Big East at that point) ?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

            EGs ready for the NBA right now... I dont think he'd see much time on the court, but he can shoot the ball well enough to play in the NBA.

            He definitely doesn't have the handles to be successfull PG in the league.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

              It doesn't matter how compelling an argument you present, Gordon is this generations Steve Alford. Indiana homers want him. Period. He could suffer a 5 ppg dropoff, make his assist/turnover ratio EVEN WORSE than his less than 1, and stop managing even his meager 3 boards a game, and someone would claim it was just him being a great player and getting his teammates involved more.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                It doesn't matter how compelling an argument you present, Gordon is this generations Steve Alford. Indiana homers want him. Period. He could suffer a 5 ppg dropoff, make his assist/turnover ratio EVEN WORSE than his less than 1, and stop managing even his meager 3 boards a game, and someone would claim it was just him being a great player and getting his teammates involved more.
                It's all moot...because as much as we want him, we're not getting him because A TEAM IN THE TOP 5 OF THE LOTTERY WILL DRAFT HIM!! So yeah, it's all moot.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                  My point from the beginning was this, fine if you don't want Gordon, but saying you want Mayo over Gordon makes little to no sense. Especially if you're main gripe about Gordon is that he is undersized. Mayo isn't exactly a big guy, and if you're other big gripe about Gordon is his assist/turnover ratio then you can't say you want Mayo either. Mayo is .07 better in the assist/turnover category and is supposed to be this amazing ball handler and quite possibly a PG in the NBA which makes ZERO sense. I can see why people wouldn't want Gordon he has his flaws without doubt, but saying he'll be Fred Jones or saying you would take Mayo over him just doesn't add up.


                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    It's all moot...because as much as we want him, we're not getting him because A TEAM IN THE TOP 5 OF THE LOTTERY WILL DRAFT HIM!! So yeah, it's all moot.
                    If he keeps turning the ball over like he has then he won't be in the top 5...

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                      Originally posted by Kofi View Post

                      I can see Gordon being another Dajuan Wagner. Gordon may be a better shooter, but Wagner was quicker and a better ball handler. I'm just not sold on undersized SG's. There's far too many draft day failures amongst them; Wagner, Fred Jones, Juan Dixon, Shawn Respert, Troy Bell etc.
                      Juan Dixon, Fred Jones, and Troy Bell were both very late lottery-mid first round picks, which are always crap shoots. To use them in this argument is ridiculous, they were never really expected to be great professional players and even on their respective draft days they were not drafted in the top 5.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                        Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                        Kofi-

                        So, if EJ slips all the way out of the top-5 to #6, you'll assume that
                        numerous, NBA GM's agree with you that he's destined to be just
                        another undersized SG, if not a bust ?

                        Right.

                        And remind us, which power conference was Wade 'lighting up' in
                        his (according to you) supposed stellar 'redshirt' freshman year at
                        Marquette (and no, it wasn't in the Big East at that point) ?
                        Not at all. If GM's felt that he was destined to be just another undersized SG, he wouldn't go lottery. But he's both undersized and hasn't shown a great overall skill set, which I believe will cause GM's in the top-5 to shy away from him. Outside of the top-5, I believe his scoring and athleticism is enough of a plus to be worth the risk. But there are flat-out better prospects than Eric Gordon out there, as hard as that seems to be for certain people around here to fathom. And if you look on other message boards, boards that aren't filled with biased Hoosiers, you'll see an alarmingly large number of fans agree with that statement.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                          Troy Bell was an Academic All-American!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            If he keeps turning the ball over like he has then he won't be in the top 5...

                            -Bball
                            Agreed. It's clearly an issue and it's not just handles, it's passing as well. People might want to rip on Kofi, but I just don't see how you can watch EJ play and not think Wade's game without Wade's hops, which frankly isn't quite top 5 to me.

                            All these kids can still make further progress, they are prospects who for the most part haven't even had 4 years of NCAA caliber learning and maturity, let alone a couple of NBA seasons. So EJ could learn to make better passes and take better care of the ball. But he could also lose his shot instead (see Mike Dunleavy till this year).

                            I have to admit that I'm kinda glad that it's going to be a moot point. As it stands we are going to have fans upset if they take Love or Thabeet instead of DJ White at 10-12 (if that's where they pick).


                            BTW, for all his rep Mayo has shown a real willingness to D up tight and keeps it up all game. He's taken on the challenge when facing guys like Derrick Rose, though Rose didn't D him up the other way. EJ makes some nice plays, but Mayo makes a point to close out his man at all times, not just when he's headed to the rim. He'll close out tight on a guy just getting a ball reversal pass or a guy that might want to feed the post. This has gotten notice on the national level when people cover his games, it's not just my opinion.

                            He's not an ace defender, but he plays like he wants to be. I haven't really seen that from EJ yet. Frankly Bayless looks a lot better than either one at this point, and if Augustin was a little taller I might have more interest in him too.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-20-2008, 01:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                              Can Love play center in the NBA?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Eric Gordon FTW!

                                the fact is, bayless at 6'2-6'3 and mayo at 6'4-6'5 both have the potential to be solid pgs in the nba...not just combo guards...ej at 6'2-6'3 1/2 otoh only has the ability to play sg in the nba...and for everybody doubting mayo based on a perceived attitude problem or statistics without having watched him play, really has no room to talk...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X