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

Why are we going big?

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

  • #16
    Re: Why are we going big?

    To expand on what Anthem and cdash has said.....we're likely to pick the BPA at the #10 spot....who will likely be a Big Man....only because this draft is Big-Man heavy.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why are we going big?

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      To expand on what Anthem and cdash has said.....we're likely to pick the BPA at the #10 spot....who will likely be a Big Man....only because this draft is Big-Man heavy.
      I don't think Bird will pick the BPA. I think he will pick the most "NBA ready" player - the upper classman with the lowest floor. That has been his recent MO. Tyler certainly wasn't BPA, IMO.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why are we going big?

        Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
        I don't think Bird will pick the BPA. I think he will pick the most "NBA ready" player - the upper classman with the lowest floor. That has been his recent MO. Tyler certainly wasn't BPA, IMO.
        I think he will shift this year to BPA, rather than the "seasoned college winner" mode. However, he will not draft a guy like Cousins. I don't think he's ready to take that type of risk.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why are we going big?

          Below is a link to Draft Express' current mock:

          http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2010/

          Here are where they have the point guards:

          1
          24
          35
          37
          45
          46
          49
          50
          52
          53 (6'10" PG/SG/SF, WTF?)

          Now, if you want to draft a PG at 10, that's your prerogative. But we would be better served trading down, or if you want immediate impact, trade for an established player.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why are we going big?

            Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
            I don't think Bird will pick the BPA. I think he will pick the most "NBA ready" player - the upper classman with the lowest floor. That has been his recent MO. Tyler certainly wasn't BPA, IMO.
            I can't disagree with that.....but since any Non-PF is likely to not be NBA-Ready......I'm guessing that there is a good chance that the BPA and/or the most NBA-Ready Player will be a PF.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why are we going big?

              Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
              Jeff is a center.
              Don't see what's laughable about what Josh did at the end of the season when given a chance, nor what Tyler showed in the little time he had on the court. (with no training camp and little off season conditoning). Both are young and going to improve. Tyler was our #1 pick last year and that may not mean anything to you, but I guarantee you it does to the coaches and PTB. I liked very much what I saw last year from a rookie that had no time on the floor prior to the season.
              Murphy is a very decent player despite what many of the armchair coaches think. Funny how bad he is but how other teams wanted him. hmmmmm Only good rebounder on our front line and his outside shooting pulls other 4's out so Roy doesn't get doubled and beat on by 2 big men inside.
              We were a decent team at the end of the year. Danny finally healthy to go with a rapidly developing low post threat in Roy and Murphy opening up the lane with his range.
              Discount it all you want, that team was healthy and showed some stuff to anyone that was paying attention.

              This team will be competetive (.500 minimum) from the get go. What it needs to get to the next level is another dynamic guard. Via draft or trade the pick. Get a good guard and this team goes up nice notch.
              i agree. mcbob is the youngest player on our roster. and very might be again after this draft. he has as much potential as anybody. could be a jermaine type of bloom. not type of player but type of blossom into a good player.
              "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why are we going big?

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                Below is a link to Draft Express' current mock:

                http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2010/

                Here are where they have the point guards:

                1
                24
                35
                37
                45
                46
                49
                50
                52
                53 (6'10" PG/SG/SF, WTF?)

                Now, if you want to draft a PG at 10, that's your prerogative. But we would be better served trading down, or if you want immediate impact, trade for an established player.
                udoh and brackins...wouldnt mind that one bit.
                "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why are we going big?

                  Originally posted by MLB007 View Post

                  This team is not nearly as far away as many here seem to think.
                  That depends on what it is that they are going for. The 8th seed in the playoffs? Sure they might not be that far away from. Being a championship contender (which I think is what most of us are hoping for in the future), they are that far away from...very far away from.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why are we going big?

                    Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                    According to the pundits......
                    I think it's a smoke screen.
                    while plenty here think we need help up front, I think the PTB know what with Jeff and Tyler up front next year we really don't.
                    I think we take the best PG prospect on the board UNLESS we trade for one first.
                    The best p.g. on the board would be Eric Bledsoe, who would be available at 10, but we could probably trade down and maybe pick up another pick and grab him in the 14-20 range. This really is the weakest p.g. draft in some time, with possibly only 2 or 3 p.g.'s being chosen in the first round. After Bledsoe, there is Armon Johnson who projects in the late first round.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why are we going big?

                      This a funny question to me. The draft is over a month away. Most people on here think we will go big, if we keep the pick. Most mock draft boards have us going big, also. Does this mean anything, no no no! Yes the BPA will probably be a big at 10, Udoh, Patterson, Monroe..... Does that mean Larry picks one them maybe, but who the heck knows. Larry almost always pulls something out of nowhere on his picks. Last year Tyler was discussed on here alot, but not many people wanted us to draft him. Two years ago who could have predicited a Rush, Hibbert combo? Not many.
                      Don't get me wrong I love talking about the draft and who we should take, but to say we are going big, only Larry knows that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why are we going big?

                        Perhaps I'm being too short-sighted and need to wait and see, but I thought McRoberts looked like a much better NBA player than Hansbrough. Sure Hansbrough was the better college player, but this ain't the ACC. McRoberts was bigger, a better defender, passer, ball handler, a more efficient scorer, and far and away more athletic. Athleticism is important in the NBA, and McRoberts athleticism seemed to translate more towards success at the professional level.

                        I think they both could be contributors, unlike Foster. Foster is too old, too brittle, and would only be delaying any development of McRoberts, Hansbrough, and especially Roy if he plays this year.

                        I hope we don't draft another PF (especially another "old" PF with little upside, when we already drafted one last year) just because that is the deepest position in this draft. We should have gotten our PG last year when he was available, but didn't, I hope we don't compound that mistake by taking another PF.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why are we going big?

                          Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                          This team will be competetive (.500 minimum) from the get go.
                          Ahhh... you mean like last year?

                          I agree that we need a talent infusion at the PG position, but the same goes for the PF position IMHO. I wasn't too happy about the Tyler pick to tell you the truth, but even if you were then how can you simply forget about Foster and his injury troubles over the past years and not think about JO and his injuries and extended times off because of that and still getting injured over and over.

                          Besides that Jeff is getting older and thus more vulnerable too injuries and I don't want us to rely on Danny to fill up some PF minutes if that happens, because JOB is refusing to play for example Josh McRoberts a couple more minutes, leading to Danny very possibly getting more injuries and earlier injuries in his career then would be necessary.

                          We need another PF/C IMHO. And pretty badly too if you ask me. Maybe we'll get a backup or a borderline starter now, while our chances of having a very good starter or all-star calibre player were so much better late february.

                          Question for you as the topicstarter though... which guard do you think is good enough to warrant a #10 pick?

                          Regards,

                          Mourning
                          Last edited by Mourning; 05-16-2010, 11:53 AM.
                          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why are we going big?

                            Wall and Evans would be warrant it, but no one else.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why are we going big?

                              Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                              Jeff is a center.
                              Don't see what's laughable about what Josh did at the end of the season when given a chance, nor what Tyler showed in the little time he had on the court. (with no training camp and little off season conditoning). Both are young and going to improve. Tyler was our #1 pick last year and that may not mean anything to you, but I guarantee you it does to the coaches and PTB. I liked very much what I saw last year from a rookie that had no time on the floor prior to the season.
                              Murphy is a very decent player despite what many of the armchair coaches think. Funny how bad he is but how other teams wanted him. hmmmmm Only good rebounder on our front line and his outside shooting pulls other 4's out so Roy doesn't get doubled and beat on by 2 big men inside.
                              We were a decent team at the end of the year. Danny finally healthy to go with a rapidly developing low post threat in Roy and Murphy opening up the lane with his range.
                              Discount it all you want, that team was healthy and showed some stuff to anyone that was paying attention.

                              This team will be competetive (.500 minimum) from the get go. What it needs to get to the next level is another dynamic guard. Via draft or trade the pick. Get a good guard and this team goes up nice notch.
                              Josh was a nice surprise I'm not tryin to discount what he did, but so was AJ Price. Neither are or will ever be starting caliber players on competitive teams.

                              I am not a Murphy fan, but I will say that he's proven to at least be "starter" quality. When focused he's shown the ability to hit that top of the key 3 and is a decent defensive rebounder. The problem wiht him is that any notion of him factoring into our long term plans is a pipedream. He'll be gone by the trade deadline next year, or at the very least won't be resigned when his contract is up next summer. So you can't really count on him being our answer at PF.

                              Jeff Foster is a shell of his former self even when healthy.

                              I do not see what half this board sees in Tyler even when he was healthy. The only skills I saw that were even better than average were a knack at getting to the line and rebounding on the offensive end. He can't shoot either inside or out, can't defend and provides no real post presence. He's a good few notches under say, a Serge Ibaka who I think is a borderline starter in this league. I thought Tyler was a bad pick and he's shown me nothing to change my perception of him. At this point, Josh is better and younger. Tyler is really not young. Hes like 25 years old.

                              Add to this fact that picking at 10 any PG we'd pick would be a pretty big reach, and my favorite SG that would be available there (Henry) I can't even say for sure is better than Brandon Rush after a pretty disappointing season at Kansas. On the other hand there are lots of choices at the PF position, none of whom I love but all of whom I think are better prospects than Henry, Bledsoe, Armon Johnson and the rest of the guards.

                              I will agree with you that if were talking trade, it seems the available PGs are more attractive than the available PFs. Also if you are only talking about next season, then yes, Troy (for one year) is better than whatever we have going on at PG. But that's pretty shortsighted considering how bad this team is.

                              This doesn't change the fact that I think we need just as much help at PF as we do at PG.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X