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

Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

    I agree the 10th pick can be better than Foster. Foster was a roll player that many contending teams desired. Granted he might not have started, but they desired him.

    I do not want Davis for the record. But if he was a shot blocking Foster, who worked well in the pnr, then I would be all for him. But that would not be a Foster, that would be Dwight Howard.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      a player who will take 3-4 years to develop into a "role player" type.
      This is the crux here. I just don't see enough upside to take the time to develop this kid when you could probably draft a guy who could do those things next season rather than 3 years from now.

      David Thorpe said it best about Davis: He had too many average games for an average team to be a lottery pick.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I watched the guy in the few games that he played this year and he has nothing to be a top ten pick.
        That's how I feel about a number of "lottery" guys. Then I look at who's projected after them and I understand.

        (Except for Quincy Pondexter. I don't get him being so low at all. Yeah, sure, he can't shoot, but neither could Terence Williams. )
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

          Unless it's Monroe, I don't see the Pacers taking a big with the 10th pick. This will be a guard, small forward, or a trade down pick.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

            Ed Davis was on Jim Rome's show (kinda) and the clip is on espn.com:

            http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5253167

            It is mostly a fluff piece, but I must say he looks much leaner and stronger than I thought previously. I really think playing with a enormous T-shirt under his jersey made him look weaker than he is.

            He seems like a great kid, and I like his game.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Has any of the guys that like Davis ever see him playing? were is all the Davis love coming from? I watched the guy in the few games that he played this year and he has nothing to be a top ten pick.

              I agree with Tbird's and I would ad that this guy is one of the softest guys I have ever seen in my life.
              Anyone following the prospect thread knows that I 100% agree on this. Maybe not soft, just not involved. He's a classic case of low basketball skills and awareness.

              This doesn't mean he's asleep and unable to move, though as Tbird says he's not exactly fluid for a scrawny kid (he looks big only compared to Hensen, who in fact might be the first NCAA player to break in half literally). What this means is that Davis just doesn't have stuff like rolls to retake post position, up and unders into drop steps in turn hook shots, he doesn't see a lot of the chances to impact the game and doesn't have the list of tools developed to do so either.

              He's got length and some hops.

              I take exception kinda with this comment by Tbird
              and he is an unselfish defensive player, willing to help his teammates and leave his own man...sometimes too easily in fact.
              To me this is your "homerun defender" as I call it. It's not "I'm willing to help" to my eyes but rather "I love to go get blocks".

              This isn't the same as what you'll see the best skilled/awareness low block guys (Lawal, Booker is close) do. Lawal will come COVER your man and force him back out, then go recover to his man. He won't chase blocks at the expense of constantly giving up rebounding spots.


              Davis is less raw to me than Whiteside, but not a ton.

              Speaking of raw and putting on 30 pounds, I just edited down another GaTech game and what a reminder that was of just how utterly unfunctional Derrick Favors still is. He looks the part, but other than that he's not much different than Davis.

              Favors is Davis if your dream of Davis putting on some muscle came true but the rest of his game was still in the stages of "this is called the basket, we try to put the ball in our basket but we don't want the other team to put the ball in that basket down there."

              *allow me just a bit of sarcastic hyperbole but neither dude really plays a quality game of basketball as much as they just athletic move around trying to figure out what they should do to help



              I know the Patterson thing is a dead horse from me, but the awareness, power and leadership abilities from him give him a clear advantage over the players we hope pan out. Continue to keep Udoh, Monroe in there too, and maybe Sanders (10 is too high for him).

              Lawal at 20th makes a lot more sense than Davis at 10.

              Why risk on a PF this year when you have a line around the block of proven options just as good? All for the slim chance that Davis becomes something that he has yet to show a glimpse of becoming so far?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

                Non-relevent SG derail....

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                That's how I feel about a number of "lottery" guys. Then I look at who's projected after them and I understand.

                (Except for Quincy Pondexter. I don't get him being so low at all. Yeah, sure, he can't shoot, but neither could Terence Williams. )
                Q-pee doll is nothing but a shooting guard. I thought his shooting was his biggest asset, and I watched him more than once in detail too which is rare for 2nd round guys off my radar to start the year. The issue is he's just not enough of a shooting ace for that to carry him, though he does have solid form.

                I tried to like him and he's certainly better than Malcom Lee but I don't really see it.


                TWill could/can high-level (not just okay, but a strength) NBA pass, rebound and defend. That's why I wanted him.



                I'm a bit surprised you are as high on him because we typically are in pretty close agreement. I think one benefit for QP is that the SG crop this year is awful. When you are being ranked against guys like Willie Warren it's hard not to look decent.

                This is one reason why I'm shocked that Lace Dunn wasn't flying high in 2010 mocks. Huge volume of 3s with a great make rate, super quick, tons of hops, good handles, constant motor.

                At least TWill and Rush climbed the charts after I noted them, meaning someone else took notice. Dunn is the first head-scratcher for me, though Ndiaye is a pretty odd case too.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

                  Took you long enough Seth. I put that in just for you.

                  We'll just have to wait and see.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

                    Originally posted by judicata View Post
                    Ed Davis was on Jim Rome's show (kinda) and the clip is on espn.com:

                    http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5253167

                    It is mostly a fluff piece, but I must say he looks much leaner and stronger than I thought previously. I really think playing with a enormous T-shirt under his jersey made him look weaker than he is.

                    He seems like a great kid, and I like his game.
                    He's a real soft spoken guy who comes across as very polite and mature. He's also exactly what we've been looking for -- a young, athletic rebounder/shot blocker with huge upside. I have no problem with taking him if he's there at #10 (assuming we actually keep the pick).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      Took you long enough Seth. I put that in just for you.

                      We'll just have to wait and see.
                      You have to at least admit that the Pac 10 sucked. I mean we are talking about Poindexter and Lee as the top prospects. Hard to believe Lee was ranked top 20 by some to start the season. I saw him early and was just dumbfounded.

                      At least with Garcia I could see how scouts saw a tall, lanky kid who kind of looked like he had a player in there somewhere even though he was a train wreck against very weak competition.

                      Gonzaga and Nevada were the most interesting "west" teams for prospects this year.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

                        Oh, gawd yes it sucked. Watching Pac 10 games was painful this year.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird's 2010 draft analysis #4: Ed Davis

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Lawal at 20th makes a lot more sense than Davis at 10.

                          Why risk on a PF this year when you have a line around the block of proven options just as good? All for the slim chance that Davis becomes something that he has yet to show a glimpse of becoming so far?
                          I like Lawal at 20 too, but they fill different roles. Davis can slide between both post positions, Lawal cannot. And Lawal will not be the kind of lane defender Davis will: he is 1.5" shorter and cannot get up there like Davis.

                          As for the potential vs proven argument, the statistics do not bear this out. Davis averaged 13 and 9, Lawal 13 and 8.5. What proof are you looking at with Lawal? I understand that Davis did not meet expectations, but he still produced at or above the level of the other guys at his position in this draft.

                          Edit: For the record, I think you can make a solid argument that Lawal's game will translate to the next level better. But that is different from arguing that Lawal produced and Davis did not, which the box scores do not bear out.
                          Last edited by judicata; 06-05-2010, 02:33 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X