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

Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

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

  • #61
    Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

    Originally posted by Y2J View Post
    Pic of Bynum and Diogu
    I wish the Lakers would just offer us a fair deal already, really. I mean I don't want to hand JO away, but a future frontline w/ Bynum and Diogu at the big spots and Granger and Williams at the F spots could be dominant. I could really get behind rooting for those guys.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

      Ike can definitely be a good player and I was sorry to see him leave us when we unloaded Murphleavy, but I don't think 20/10 is anything in his future.

      I think some people put it well when they said that Jermaine has kind of made some people take for granted just how hard it is to be a 20/10 guy (while doing it for a team that wins).

      Another thing I want to address is these Elton Brand comparisons: Ike isn't Elton Brand and will never be Brand. Right now, Luke Ridnour is closer to Steve Nash than Ike is to Brand.

      Brand is a true 6'8" while Ike measured out at 6'6.5". He's not as big as Brand nor is he as quick or athletic. Brand is a deterrant at the rim defensively while the interior defense tends to suffer when Ike enters the game. Brand knows how to pass out of a double team. Ike doesn't. You can play Brand for stretches at center and still break even, while it's generally a proposition for the other team to make a big run if you try it with Ike.

      Ike can certainly be a good player in this game, but he needs to get better at a lot of things in the game besides scoring one on one in the low post. I still conisder the guy a potential starter, but you need a good defensive center and SF next to him for it to work. He's not a stand alone guy like Jermaine (a guy who can be good no matter who you put next to him).

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        Ike can definitely be a good player and I was sorry to see him leave us when we unloaded Murphleavy, but I don't think 20/10 is anything in his future.

        I think some people put it well when they said that Jermaine has kind of made some people take for granted just how hard it is to be a 20/10 guy (while doing it for a team that wins).

        Another thing I want to address is these Elton Brand comparisons: Ike isn't Elton Brand and will never be Brand. Right now, Luke Ridnour is closer to Steve Nash than Ike is to Brand.

        Brand is a true 6'8" while Ike measured out at 6'6.5". He's not as big as Brand nor is he as quick or athletic. Brand is a deterrant at the rim defensively while the interior defense tends to suffer when Ike enters the game. Brand knows how to pass out of a double team. Ike doesn't. You can play Brand for stretches at center and still break even, while it's generally a proposition for the other team to make a big run if you try it with Ike.

        Ike can certainly be a good player in this game, but he needs to get better at a lot of things in the game besides scoring one on one in the low post. I still conisder the guy a potential starter, but you need a good defensive center and SF next to him for it to work. He's not a stand alone guy like Jermaine (a guy who can be good no matter who you put next to him).
        How dare you come onto Pacers Digest and complimentary things about JO?

        Now you've done it.

        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          Brand is a true 6'8" while Ike measured out at 6'6.5
          Ike isn't allowed to play in shoes but Brand is?

          Ike measured out at 6'8" in shoes, with a crazy long reach and wingspan:

          http://www.insidehoops.com/chicago-c...urements.shtml

          I can't find official measurements for Brand (1999 draft) but he is generally listed at 6'8" and the listed measurements are always in shoes.

          a discussion on Brand and Diogu's measurements:

          http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1004

          Elton Brand plays as big as any player in the league despite being substantially undersized- perhaps as short as 6’6 according to some. Yet his insane length practically makes him a 7 footer on the floor, and thanks to his smaller stature, he has coordination and quickness that only a select few of the really tall guys in the league possess. Likewise, bigger guys with T-Rex arms (think Rafael Araujo) frequently end up struggling in the NBA. Not to say that length is the entire story- athletic ability, skill, and mentality can more than make up for it- but you rarely find a truly great big man in the NBA with below average reach for his position.

          As for the wingspan versus standing reach debate, I’m a proponent of the latter, primarily because wingspan doesn’t measure arm length so much as shoulder width. In this year’s draft for example, Danny Granger, who is almost identical in height and wingspan to Hakim Warrick, measured a whopping 5 inches shorter in the standing reach test. While a prodigious wingspan alone doesn’t hurt, and all but guarantees that the prospect in question has the frame to take on some serious weight, a high vertical reach allows a more universal impact: shot blocking, shooting over tough D, snagging high rebounds. But I digress.

          Since college and foreign player measurements are equally unreliable, it’s easy to see why the Chicago Pre-Draft measurements are so important. They completely change the entire game- in essence players can grow and shrink several inches overnight. While the 2005 draft will probably not be radically transformed by these uncovered revelations, certain players will undoubtedly be rising or falling because of them. Listed below are the most important ones, as well as others of interest.

          Stock Up:

          Ike Diogu
          6' 6½" (height without shoes)
          7' 3½" (wingspan)
          9' 1" (standing reach)

          At first it seems like Ike got the short stick, measuring out at a paltry 6' 6½" without shoes. A closer look reveals that his overall results were fantastic, giving him a standing reach on par with Taft and Villanueva (who will be listed at 6’10 in the NBA), and a longer wingspan than Andrew Bogut. Combine that with his terrific skill set and he could now be considered all but a lottery lock, and has an outside chance at being the first true PF taken.
          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


          • #65
            Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

            Back in 99', people expected Brand to measure out at just over 6'6" and it was assumed he'd slip in the draft because of it. Then something strange happened.

            Brand measured out at 6'8" w/o shoes, to the shock of many. That's what essentially propeled him into being the #1 pick, as it quelled a lot of fears. He's one of those rare NCAA players that really measured out at the height he's listed to be at. (Listed heights of most Euro players are true more often).

            But don't take a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper to be your guide. Use your own set of eyes.

            The next time the Clips play the Pacers, just watch Ike when he's standing next to Brand. He's shorter than Brand. And then watch them play.

            Regardless of measurements, I've always liked Ike and he could eventually be the best player in that 8 man trade, but he's not Elton Brand. He doesn't affect the game at nearly the same magnitude.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

              If Brand were in fact 6'8" without shoes he'd be listed at 6'9" minimum, probably 6'10". Me thinks you're just making up an excuse to hate on Ike.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                If Brand were in fact 6'8" without shoes he'd be listed at 6'9" minimum, probably 6'10". Me thinks you're just making up an excuse to hate on Ike.
                Oh geez. I'm hating on Ike for saying that he's shorter than Elton Brand?

                The listed heights of players are some of the least consistent things in this league. Some guys are listed at their real heights, but most aren't.

                Example:

                Mickael Pietrus is listed at 6'6"
                Jason Richardson is listed at 6'6"

                Those are the official listed heights of both players.

                When both stand next to each other on court (and I've seen it in real life and on TV many, many, many times), Pietrus is clearly taller than JRich by at least an inch. It's pretty damn obvious. Maybe it's because JRich actually measured out at 6'4.75" while Pietrus really is 6'6". But notice that Pietrus doesn't list himself at 6'7" or 6'8".

                Brand is one of the few US college players these days who didn't exaggerate his height and listed himself as 6'8" w/o shoes, which he really is.

                But as I've said before, you can just screw what's on paper on go use your own set of eyes when the Pacers and Clips play eachother next year. It's not a science.
                Last edited by d_c; 07-11-2007, 08:49 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                  LINK 1
                  LINK 2

                  It's official....

                  Ike
                  Barefoot - 6.6'5"
                  Shoes - 6'8"
                  Wingspan - 7'3.5"

                  Elton
                  Barefoot - 6'7"
                  Shoes - 6'8"
                  Wingspan - 7'5"


                  Extremely similar. Elton has been dominate, one of the few guys with a career 20/10 average currently in the league. Ike plays with much more intensity than Brand, perhaps too a fault. Ike has a nice outside touch, as soon as he uses that to his advantage the way Brand does, he's gonna become a constant 18-21 ppg player.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                    Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                    LINK 1
                    LINK 2

                    It's official....

                    Ike
                    Barefoot - 6.6'5"
                    Shoes - 6'8"
                    Wingspan - 7'3.5"

                    Elton
                    Barefoot - 6'7"
                    Shoes - 6'8"
                    Wingspan - 7'5"


                    Extremely similar. Elton has been dominate, one of the few guys with a career 20/10 average currently in the league. Ike plays with much more intensity than Brand, perhaps too a fault. Ike has a nice outside touch, as soon as he uses that to his advantage the way Brand does, he's gonna become a constant 18-21 ppg player.
                    The info that Clipper fan gave said those weren't even official numbers and to take it FWIW. The other list (which was compilation made by a poster) seemed peculiar to me because Brand was the only guy on it from the 99' draft. Everyone else on that list was from the 2001 or 2002 draft. Where did he pull the Brand info from, and was it indeed using heights w/ or w/o shoes?

                    But whatever. My main point in all of this listed height business is to use your own set of eyes when you see them standing next to eachother next year on the court. It's the easiest way of telling who's taller between two players, just as the best way to evaluate a player is to watch the actual game, not simply to read a boxscore.

                    I don't think Ike plays with more intensity, but I'm not going to argue about that if you think he does. Watch the game and see who affects it more on both ends of the floor. Ike can be a very good player and right now I consider him a potential starter.

                    Elton Brand is at another level. He's made the all-star team twice playing in a conference that's had the likes of KG, Dirk, Duncan and Webber (back when he was still good) playing the same position he does. He's made the all NBA 2nd team.

                    Saying that Ike probably won't turn out to be as good as Brand isn't a slap in the face to anyone or saying that he's a failure. He could wind up falling well short of Brand yet still be considered valuable and productive asset.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                      Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                      Elton has been dominate
                      DOMINANT! THE FREAKING WORD IS DOMINANT!

                      "Dominate" is a verb, not an adjective. I see this all the time and it MAKES ME CRAZY!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                        easy there, Skeletor....

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #73
                          Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                          And yet he lets some guy put "smokin' a stoogie" with nary a word......:shakehead
                          Last edited by MagicRat; 07-12-2007, 01:24 AM.
                          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                          Comment


                          • #74
                            Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                            Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                            And yet he let's some guy put "smokin' a stoogie" with nary a word......:shakehead
                            I hear he's been drinking a lot lately. But I wouldn't know, really. I've mostly been ignoring him.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #75
                              Re: Ike = Future 20/10 Guy?

                              i will say this about brand- despite being only 6'8 his freakish arm length makes him a legit 6'10 with good instincts. the dude can nearly scratch his kneecaps without bending over. he has insane reach- that is a huge reason why he can dominate. he is like "what if harrison had his arms?" (i wish he did) because of that- it makes a major difference. oh well, just my 2cents.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X