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

Mike Dunleavy Jr.

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

  • #46
    Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

    If that draft were held today:

    stars:
    1. Yao Ming
    2. Amare Stoudemire

    big contrbutors:
    3. Tayshaun Prince
    4. Caron Butler
    5. Nenad Krstic
    6. Drew Gooden

    valuable players:
    7. Nene Hilario (based upon potential)
    8. Chris Wilcox (based upon potential)
    9. Mike Dunleavy

    then Jeffries, Ely, Dixon
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

      Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
      Another note on Dunleavy. For those thinking he was taken too high in the draft.......... look at the quality of the players taken after him.

      1. Yao Ming
      2. Jay Williams
      3. Mike Dunleavy
      4. Drew Gooden
      5. Nikoloz Tskitishvili
      6. Dajuan Wagner
      7. Nene Hilario
      8. Chris Wilcox
      9. Amare Stoudemire
      10. Caron Butler
      11. Jared Jeffries
      12. Melvin Ely
      13. Marcus Haislip
      14. Fred Jones
      15. Bostjan Nachbar
      16. Jiri Welsch
      17. Juan Dixon
      18. Curtis Borchardt
      19. Ryan Humphrey
      20. Kareem Rush
      21. Qyntel Woods
      22. Casey Jacobsen
      23. Tayshaun Prince
      24. Nenad Krstic
      25. Frank Williams
      26. John Salmons
      27. Chris Jefferies
      28. Dan Dickau

      Nearly half that draft class is out of the league now. I could see maybe 3 or 4 guys that should have been taken ahead of him but he still should have been a mid lottery pick.


      Great point.

      Obviously Amare should have gone number 2 and Caron Butler should have gone ahead of Dunleavy, And probably Prince - other than those three Dunleavy is the 6th best player in that draft at worst he's 7th best player.

      Terrible draft.

      Edit: oops I overlooked Krstic.

      As far as Gooden. He's pretty good now, but he's had a very difficult time getting to this point in his career. traded 3 times - not sure he's better than Dunleavy, but you could make that argument

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

        Not to mention the guy drafted a spot ahead of him at #2 completely wasted his career with one big stupid mistake.

        There's only 4 players who've had significantly better careers thus far...

        Yao , Amare, Caron, and Tayshaun. Krstic is on his way but I wouldn't say his career has been better thus far. Other than that, there's a trio of so-so big men in Gooden, Nene, and Wilcox and the rest pretty much suck.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

          I'm surprised people actually like Dunleavy, I went to the game last night and my dad and I think he is the worst thing about the trade(I love Murphy though) and our whole section was screaming at Dunleavy b/c he can't play D and doesn't put any hustle or effort into anything and kept leaving Kapono wide open. Just mine and most of section 19's 2 cents

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

            Originally posted by IndyFan032589 View Post
            I'm surprised people actually like Dunleavy, I went to the game last night and my dad and I think he is the worst thing about the trade(I love Murphy though) and our whole section was screaming at Dunleavy b/c he can't play D and doesn't put any hustle or effort into anything and kept leaving Kapono wide open. Just mine and most of section 19's 2 cents
            worst thing on the trade.. come on man, i don't know if this is the first time you've seen him play after the trade as a pacers. Today was just one of his awful shooting nights, only hit one three, and missed a lot of jumpers, but the reason he was on the floor a lot was because he was doing a lot, he wasn't forcing shots, still setting screens, still giving nice passes.

            on the D, it's kinda hard to guard Kapono when Mourning and Walker are the screeners, i'm not saying he is unguardable but you have to put the fact that he is getting screened and Kapono is just automatic last night, other than that, i think he does a great job of moving his feet and helping out on the D.

            He had an awful game and still finished with 9pts, 5 rebounds, 3 assists and a steal.

            just a bad shooting night, 1 for 7 atleast he wasn't forcing shots, only shots he is taking is on the flow of the game.

            This is just kind of an observation but when Tinsley is on the game, I don't think Dunleavy gets the ball a lot, because Tinsley often drives and goes to the hoop and doesn't pass out, while when D.A is there, the ball moves better.

            Im not saying Tinsley is a bad player but I think he should be passing more
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

              I didn't mention this in the post above but Carlos Boozer was a 2nd rounder that year. I'm not sure if anyothers from the 2nd turned into anything but Boozer should be added to that "lottery" list too.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                I didn't mention this in the post above but Carlos Boozer was a 2nd rounder that year. I'm not sure if anyothers from the 2nd turned into anything but Boozer should be added to that "lottery" list too.
                The only other notable 2nd Rounders were:
                - Dan Gadzuric
                - Flip Murray
                - Matt Barnes
                - Lonny Baxter (is he still in the League?)
                - Darius Songalia
                - Rasual Butler

                My "revised" 2002 NBA Draft based on current value would go:

                1. Yao
                2. Amare
                3. Boozer
                4. Tayshaun
                5. Caron
                6. Nenad
                7. Gooden
                8. Dunleavy
                9. Wilcox
                10. Jeffries
                11. Nene
                12. Dixon
                13. Salmons
                14. Casey Jacobson

                (With Jason Williams obviously drafted somewhere in the Top 5 because of his superior talent before the accident.)

                And while I agree that being taken #3 overall is not that early for someone who should have gone at #6 - #9, I do find it interesting that he was only the third most talented Dukie taken that year.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                  You tell 'em, Tony Valente...

                  Originally posted by Tony Valente View Post
                  I was arguing people on a Romanian forum, who keep saying that this was a "racist trade". They say Utah and Indiana are the most racist states with NBA teams (and that KKK originates from Indiana). So they insist that the sole reason Larry did this trade was because the fans weren't coming to games and now, with two white starters, they should identify themselves more with the team, or some bulls**t like that.

                  I tried to tell them that I bet Indiana fans would love a 15 black men champion team instead of a mixed-color mediocre one. I really doubt there is any truth in those speculation, so I ask you, the ones living in the state of Indiana, what's your opinion on that?

                  Sorry for the non-basketball content here. Here are a few things you can tell your Romanian friends.

                  The KKK was originated by Nathan Bedford Forrest right after the Civil War. He never set foot in Indiana. It was decidedly NOT started in Indiana. It was revived for a time as a political party throughout the nation during the 1920s and was strong in Indiana. The revival lasted for less than a decade, aimed as strongly against Jews nd Germans as against blacks, and accomplished nothing except the eventual imprisonment of party leader DC Stevenson.

                  If Indiana is the "most racist state" in the country, how come massive racially motivated riots have occurred in Los Angeles, Detroit, Washington, and New York, but never in Indianapolis?

                  You can't measure racism, but you can measure social outcomes. That is what I do for a living, and I could show you data all day long. The following link measures the extend of housing segregation in major cities:

                  http://mumford.albany.edu/census/WholePop/WPsort.html

                  Detroit, Milwaukee, New York, Chicago, Newark, Cleveland, Miami and Philadelphia all are more segregated than Indianapolis. Salt Lake City is also bettter than any of those, too.) We could go down a long list of social data, and Indianapolis wouldn't show up at the top (the bad end)
                  of any of them.


                  Ask those Romanian savants to explain how it can be racist that many of us are happy that Murphy is playing center rather than Jeff Foster. Or that many of us see the prime benefit of the trade being greater opportunity for Marquis Daniels and Danny Granger?
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    a. It was decidedly NOT started in Indiana. It was revived for a time as a political party throughout the nation during the 1920s and was strong in Indiana. The revival lasted for less than a decade, aimed as strongly against Jews nd Germans as against blacks, and accomplished nothing except the eventual imprisonment of party leader DC Stevenson.

                    I

                    It's influence in Indiana and elsewhere had little to nothing to do with it's political power and everything to do with intimidation, segregation and murder, which it wielded quite successfully for 50 years or more. I know people that grew up in small towns all over the state that still had regular Klan activities in the 70's.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                      Putnam, Cincinnatti should be on the list of highly racial tension. It is a city that has rioted for two straight years on MLK day, and for numerous other reasons.

                      It's not in the national media, but if you listen too 700 am (out of Cincinnatti) regularly they'll comment on it.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                        Originally posted by PacerMan View Post
                        It's influence in Indiana and elsewhere had little to nothing to do with it's political power and everything to do with intimidation, segregation and murder, which it wielded quite successfully for 50 years or more. I know people that grew up in small towns all over the state that still had regular Klan activities in the 70's.
                        I was raised in a small southern Indiana town (less than 10,000) in the 40's and 50's and moved away at the age of 18. I never heard of any citizen in the town associated with the KKK or as far as that goes, I never even heard the KKK mentioned. If it was there it was so secretive that no one that I knew even knew of it.

                        I still am associated with the town through relatives and I still have yet to hear of anyone who belongs to the KKK or has ever belonged to it.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                          Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                          I was raised in a small southern Indiana town (less than 10,000) in the 40's and 50's and moved away at the age of 18. I never heard of any citizen in the town associated with the KKK or as far as that goes, I never even heard the KKK mentioned. If it was there it was so secretive that no one that I knew even knew of it.

                          I still am associated with the town through relatives and I still have yet to hear of anyone who belongs to the KKK or has ever belonged to it.

                          They didn't exactly have potluck pitch-ins at the town park. A group that wears hoods at all times is secretive by nature. In many chapters, members were required to wear hoods at all times (therefore, even the actual members of the KKK had no idea who else was in their chapter).
                          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                          RSS Feed
                          Subscribe via iTunes

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Unfortunately his shooting is even more on par with Jackson so far. Pretty awful.
                            The only difference being every second shot isn't forced up and killing the offence.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                              Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                              What?????

                              I see 4 players I'd pick for sure in Yao, Stoudemire, Prince and Butler... and maybe Gooden, Krstic and Nene IF you needed a big guy... Those are the only guys I'd see you'd even possibly think taking over him... so I think he could have been taken from 3-7th out of those players... so how on earth do you get early teens??? who else would you pick before him???
                              Okay...I stand corrected....maybe I over estimated the value of certain players. Dunleavy could fall anywhere between 7 and the 10th spot....IMHO ( and its just an opinon )...I would take Yao, Amare, Boozer, Nenad, Caron and Tayshaun ( in that order ) and depending on the needs of the team....he would be grouped alongside players such as Gooden, Nene or Gadzuric. I feel that Dunleavy falls in the catagory of players inbetween a 2nd and 3rd tier players....players that are good enough to start on lottery teams....but can solidly contribute to the team off the bench as a 6th Man rotational player playing 28+ minutes a game on a team with a good starting lineup. Obviously, he was picked too high as a 3rd pick......but he still has enough skills to contribute to a team.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mike Dunleavy Jr.

                                This is why you gotta love PD: Come for the Dunleavy discussion, stay for the KKK history lesson.

                                Well done, fellas.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X