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

ESPN 25 under 25 no Myles?

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

  • ESPN 25 under 25 no Myles?

    http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/stor...rstar-rankings
    I'm sorry, but this is hard for me to believe.

    Greek freak
    embid
    jokic
    Kat
    Simmons
    luka
    Mitchell
    Tatum
    fox
    Booker
    zinger
    siakam
    Russell
    markkanen
    capela
    Jaren Jackson
    Murray
    ayton
    Collins
    nurkic
    bagley
    lavert
    kuzma
    ball
    brown
    Last edited by DieHard; 02-27-2019, 03:58 AM. Reason: Updated to show list

  • #2
    I couldn’t see the list but I’d rather have: Bagley, Trae Young, Doncic, Giannis, Jamal Murray, Deangello Russel, Fox, Tatum, Saikam, Mitchell, Devin Booker(especially on draft day smh), Jonathon Isaac, Jaren Jackson and honestly that’s about it lol. How did they come up w 25? Lol.

    Comment


    • #3
      Laure Markeden is pretty good too. But there’s no way Myles who is the clear defensive leader of the best defense and a 3rd place team isn’t in the top 25 under 25.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DieHard View Post
        http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/stor...rstar-rankings
        I'm sorry, but this is hard for me to believe.
        Agreed that Myles is a huge omission on their part, but guess that goes with being a Pacer.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post

          Agreed that Myles is a huge omission on their part, but guess that goes with being a Pacer.
          Yep. It really isn't a surprise. I've been watching a lot of ESPN lately due to the Lakers and Celtics drama and when they talk about the Eastern Conference they never, ever mention us. I do understand that our chances to go deep in the playoffs aren't that big due to Oladipo's injury but a simple mention of the "oh, they also exist" variety isn't much to ask. It looks like the only way we're mentioned is when they talk about the drubbing we gave LeBron.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Sabonis got some votes in 2 out of 3 personal lists but just barely too few to crack Top25. Not one "expert" mentioned Myles.

            I absolutely agree that Myles should've been somewhere around 15-20, but it have to be said that the list appeared VERY MUCH offense-driven (defense was an afterthought).

            So - it was more about the "25 highest potentials to be a superstar-like filler of Box Score Stats" rather than "25 Best Players Under 25".

            If it was named such a way, this omission would have made more sense.
            Last edited by PetPaima; 02-27-2019, 02:20 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
              Sabonis got some votes in 2 out of 3 personal lists but just barely too few to crack Top25. Not one "expert" mentioned Myles.

              I absolutely agree that Myles should've been somewhere around 15-20, but it have to be said that the list appeared VERY MUCH offense-driven (defense was an afterthought).

              So - it was more about the "25 highest potentials to be a superstar-like filler of Box Score Stats" rather than "25 Best Players Under 25".

              If it was named such a way, this omission would have made more sense.
              I agree. I think Kat, Simmons, and Embiid do more harm than good. Who wants a first option center that can’t defend=kat. A LeBron who can’t shoot literally at all=Simmons, or an injury prone ball stopper=Embiid. I’m good with Myles. The end of the list is just Laughable did they forget basketball includes defense. Also 5 or 6 of them aren’t even on Myles level as a player at all. Jokic obviously is better. But huge mistake by listmakers I don’t think they watch games.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think that Porzingis shouldn't be on the list for this year because he's not going to play. He's more of a question mark than anything else.

                Myles is still a little raw and doesn't score enough or grab enough rebounds as a center to get noticed but I'm more surprised that Sabonis didn't make the list. Domas has everything in his bag that usually catches the media's attention. He can score, he dunks on people, and he's pulling down a high percentage of rebounds from the bench. He's also the son of a Hall of Famer. I think they're really sleeping on him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here are the personal lists of each "expert" :

                  Chris Herring Bobby Marks Kevin Pelton
                  No. 1 Giannis Antetokounmpo Giannis Antetokounmpo Giannis Antetokounmpo
                  No. 2 Joel Embiid Joel Embiid Luka Doncic
                  No. 3 Karl-Anthony Towns Nikola Jokic NIkola Jokic
                  No. 4 Ben Simmons Ben Simmons Joel Embiid
                  No. 5 NIkola Jokic Karl-Anthony Towns Karl-Anthony Towns
                  No. 6 Luka Doncic Donovan Mitchell Ben Simmons
                  No. 7 De'Aaron Fox Luka Doncic Donovan Mitchell
                  No. 8 Kristaps Porzingis Devin Booker Jayson Tatum
                  No. 9 Jayson Tatum Pascal Siakam D'Angelo Russell
                  No. 10 Pascal Siakam Jamal Murray De'Aaron Fox
                  No. 11 Devin Booker Clint Capela John Collins
                  No. 12 Jaren Jackson Jr. Jayson Tatum Kristaps Porzingis
                  No. 13 Lauri Markkanen De'Aaron Fox Devin Booker
                  No. 14 Donovan Mitchell Deandre Ayton Lauri Markkanen
                  No. 15 D'Angelo Russell Kristaps Porzingis Jaren Jackson Jr.
                  No. 16 Caris LeVert Kyle Kuzma Clint Capela
                  No. 17 Deandre Ayton Lauri Markkanen Pascal Siakam
                  No. 18 Marvin Bagley John Collins Lonzo Ball
                  No. 19 John Collins Jaylen Brown Jamal Murray
                  No. 20 Jusuf Nurkic D'Angelo Russell Gary Harris
                  No. 21 Clint Capela Jusuf Nurkic Aaron Gordon
                  No. 22 Zach LaVine Domantas Sabonis Trae Young
                  No. 23 Julius Randle Jaren Jackson Jr. Deandre Ayton
                  No. 24 Domantas Sabonis Trae Young Marvin Bagley
                  No. 25 Jamal Murray Monte Morris Marcus Smart
                  You can see that f ex Caris LaVert, Kyle Kuzma, Lonzo Ball & Jaylen Brown made (barely) the list by the virtue of being (overly)-rated by one single listmaker. Unlike them, Sabonis was in two lists but due to lower position he didn't accrue as many total points. 1 point behind Jaylen, 2 behind Lonzo, 4 back to Caris&Kyle.

                  You can argue that twice-selected player shoould've surpassed one-selection guys dependless of points total- that criteria would've moved him up to #22 and that would've been fair for a guy playing limited minutes mostly against reserves IMO.

                  So - I don't really see much of a "Pacers-antipathy" here. I do see "defense-antipathy".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I completely agree Myles should be on this list. But his performance hasn't been good until recently which probably explains why he's not on the list. And his game/effectiveness really did decline last year. I think people (Pacer fans in particular) are really quick to forget or maybe they blocked it out mentally. Also, he's not helping himself getting dominated the other day by Drummond who is just 25 himself.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Woah, this is actually ridiculous. I didn't want to respond to anything mentioning the brand at topic, but this is an incredible oversight. Monte Morris, Ball, Marcus Smart, Kuzma, LeVert, Gary Harris, Trae, Porzingis (Dude has played 72, 66, 48, and 0 games in his first 4 seasons) got votes over Turner? No more words, I'm actually kind of salty about this. A few other guys Myles has a strong case over, but this group is just silly to include over him.

                      Comment


                      • #12


                        This really says it all.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Im surprised they left him off. I've actually felt the media has often rated Myles higher than Pacers fans would. His name has been kind of an up and coming buzz word since he was drafted.
                          Lifelong pacers fan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It strikes me that THIS is one of the reasons we have trouble attracting up-and-coming free agents. The team can do everything right but if the FA knows they will drop off the face of the earth when they come here they will stay away for the good of their careers.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As said - I would have definitely had Myles on my list & I consider defensive ace also capable of being a "superstar". Gobert is already such a player and Myles should be as soon as he shows "staying power" as a superb defensive anchor....

                              But still - everyone of you seems to approach this article as a list of "25 Best Players Under Age 25"....
                              But already the topic had : "New and next superstar rankings"

                              and description specified : "Chris Herring, Bobby Marks and Kevin Pelton rank their top 25 players under age 25 based on future potential"


                              To be frank - as far as potential to be a superstar and as long as superstardom is 95 % based on offensive stats - Myles' ceiling is pretty much lower than anyone else on any of those lists.

                              That is completely different thing from him being better / more proven / more valuable / more ??? player than half of them AT THIS MOMENT.

                              He probably will beat many of them in career Win Shares, too... He is valuable indeed.

                              But he doesn't appear a one to become a dominant OFFENSIVE force. The guys listed do have at least some potential to transform into such players... This was all about that potential - nothing else.


                              So - I think this was less about not valuing Myles, but rather a bit of misunderstanding about what those rankings were all about...

                              ...although- sadly BillS is also correct - it will be read the same way as you all read it - and that means more people become wary of coming to Indiana as a "fame-killer career move."
                              Last edited by PetPaima; 02-28-2019, 09:15 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X