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

A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

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

  • #16
    Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

    Originally posted by johnnybegood View Post
    Maybe for a 2nd-round selection, I like the point guard from Tennessee. He is a supreme 3-shooter, but I've heard he's more of a little shooting guard w/out strong pg skills. So he'd probably be little more than a bench sparkplug, but I like him. I wonder if LBird goes after Hansborough?
    If we draft Hansbrough, I will be pissed. We should draft Tyrese Rice from BC. Just look at the last three guys from Boston College - Sean Williams, Jared Dudley, and Craig Smith - and how well they've done in the pros in their short careers thus far. There's something special in the water in Chestnut Hill...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      I haven't watched enough to say, but does he really have the hops/strength that Wade does? Wade gets by on his ability to take hits in the lane and go strong to the rim.

      A shooter needs to be able to shoot over NBA caliber defenders.
      I watched a lot of Wade during his last year at Marquette and I'd say that Gordon is better right now than Wade was then.

      Gordon's shot is 100X better. He is an amazing outside shooter, either spot up or off the dribble.

      Phsyically he's a lot stronger than his competition right now. He doesn't take hits so much as give hits. He has very wide shoulders and creates a lot of space.

      His ball handling isn't what I would consider spectacular, but it's because he's much more of a power guard than a finesse. He's going beat you by going through you as opposed to giving some slick move to where he just leaves you picking yourself up. It's not an issue, he has no problems handling the ball just don't expect some flash out of it too often.

      I would say he definately has the ability to turn into every bit of a better shooting DWade. He's been the best player on the court every game since day 1, hands down.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

        From what I've seen of Eric Gordon this year, I would give pretty much anything to have him on my NBA team. He has range from 27 feet, can create off the dribble or come off screens, gets to the hole pretty much at will and can finish strong, is a spectacular passer when creating off the dribble, and is capable of playing lock-down perimiter D. I've seen him put Lindsey Hunter-esque full court pressure on opposing guards too.

        The one thing that I'm still not sure about is his ball handling ability, especially in the open court. Not saying that it's good or bad, just saying that I haven't had the chance to watch enough games to make an assessment, also given that Bassett usually brings the ball up for IU. I wouldn't bet against EG though, that's for sure.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

          Gordon's ceiling is Wade with a better jumper. He's farther along than Wade was at the same point in time. To compare the jump shooting ability is not even funny Gordon has legit range from just inside the half court line. Wade probably has dreams of having Gordon's jumper. I'm not even exagerrating here, but Gordon has one of the best strokes the college game has seen in some time off the dribble behind the arc. His behind the back-step back three is money.
          The biggest difference right now (Between Wade and Gordon) is probably decision making as well as the fact that Gordon's handles come and go, but when they are there they are top notch. Also Gordon's D can also come and go which IMO is nothing more than he is a young player who A.) Gets tired from lots of PT and B.) Is still learning what it takes to play D for 40 minutes(which I guess is pretty much the same thing). However when Gordon is applying himself defensively he can lock just about anyone down. Gordon WON'T be a bust. (Says the guy with the IU sig) I know my opinion is probably biased, but I'm not the only one who believes this. I think Donnie Walsh has said that Gordon could start at the two for 18-20 teams in the NBA right now. Which says a lot IMO. He doesn't have the baggage Mayo does either.
          I like Rose a lot also. He's extremely impressive when you actually get to see him play. Although he does seem to disappear at times, but he has shown the ability to step up at big moments. So who really knows what his deal is...The guy can play though.
          My thoughts on Mayo are well documented around PD. I think he is a bad apple and I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Four high schools in four years means automatic PASS from me.

          I like Augustion A LOT and think that out of all the PGs in this draft that could be had in the 15-20 range he works the best in Obie's system.
          Collison scares me a little bit. Lots of potential and could become a Raymond Felton type player or possibly even a Chris Paul lite or he could be Darrell Armstrong lite for the rest of his career.

          EDIT: Seth, Since86 pretty much already covered the strength part of Gordon's game, but I second it 100%. He is incredibly strong particularly in the open court. If he decides he is going to the hole with a head of steam then you have three choices 1.) Get the HELL out the way, 2.) Foul him, or 3.) Get turned into a poster. He is very much like Lebron in the open court. Not quite as big, but the way Lebron just freight trains people, Gordon has that sort of ability to finish a break.
          Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-21-2007, 04:27 PM.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

            Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
            I honestly don't know much about E. Gordon besides the hype surrounding him locally, but my biggest question about him is... Does he really have the goods, or is he going to be one of those sensational players in HS/college but a dreaded tweener at the next level because of his size being too small for a 2G and lack of true/sensational skill at point.

            I don't say this as a troll or a Debbie downer, but I really don't know much about him and don't have enough interest to watch him play other college players that will not really give me an idea of how he will be in the NBA.
            Sounds like Ben Gordon to me. Eric Gordon is NOT Ben Gordon at all. He has Ben's range, but he is much more athletic and there is not even a comparison when it comes to their strength.
            Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-21-2007, 05:21 PM.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

              indy...you are completely right about eric gordon, however it would be very foolish of the pacers imo to draft a pg if we do not have a top 10 pick. very rarely do pgs translate consistently to the nba from college and it's next to impossible to find a great one unless you are drafting top 10. if we go pg, you are just as likely to find a good one in the 2nd round as you are mid-late 1st. so why waste a 1st rounder on one?
              Last edited by croz24; 12-21-2007, 04:44 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                Isnt Auguston 5-11 though? In the vast majority of cases, can a 5-11 guy be anything more than a career backup? -though we could use one of those.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                  http://www.nbadraft.net/admincp/prof...vonhardin.html

                  Reminds me of Dale Davis. Dale was a great rebounder and not much of a scorer.
                  Peck might like him.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                    I'd trade any combination of two players on the team if we could get in position to draft Eric Gordon. Not just because he's a great player (much higher ceiling than Mayo and Rose IMO) but because it would immediately pack the seats in Conseco .

                    Gordon is 6-4 weighs 220. He's got plenty of size to play either guard position in the NBA.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                      Not thinking of Eric Gordon. We get him it means we are not in the playoffs, unless we move up really far which I don't see happening.

                      In the NBA, you have to take the very best prospect avaliable. The guy who is going to be the best player. So I would not rule out another wing player.

                      I really like Bryce Taylor. Very well rounded player. Little small but honestly I can care less. 6'4 but a good athlete. I think one thing I really like about him, gives him an edge over other prospects is his feel for the game is very good. You can't teach that. His dad played in the NBA and I think that has helped Bryce.

                      Kevin Love is anoter guy to keep your eye on. Good skills. What I like about him is his passion. ESPN did a piece on him and how he talks with John Wooden. He wants to learn as much as he can about coach Wooden and the history of UCLA basketball and carry on the tradition. I just love that. What holds Kevin back is his lack of speed especially in the open court. Kevin is only a freshman so I can really see him sticking around at UCLA for a while.

                      DeVon Hardin seems like a solid prospect. I think he will never be a big time scorer but he is a nice athlete and can really defend. I like his game. I think he has a future as a really good, important role player for good teams.

                      Nathan Jawai might be a name to keep your eyes on as far as international prospects go. Same with Serge Ibaka.

                      http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...Nathan-Jawai-/

                      Darrell Arthur is the last guy I will mention. I think if we pick in the 15-20 range, as I expect to, that Darrell is probably the most complete and best all around big man prospect there.

                      Overall I really like Bryce Taylor the best. Darrell is right there though. I'd love to get either of them.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                        Kevin Love won't go pro. And honeslty I'm not sure he'll ever be a big time NBA player. He doesn't have the size or athleticism to be a big time player IMO. He's 6'8" probably tops also if you ask me. Not sure what he is listed as, but theres no ways hes taller than 6'8".


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                          I'd take the available player with the highest perceived upside. We have no glaring weaknesses, so we can afford to wait a few years on someone. Jerryd Bayless looks fantastic at Arizona, I'd love to see him declare and slip to us or even see us trade up to select him. He looks special. NBADraft.net has him going #6 this year, DraftExpress has him at #13 next year.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A little early, but who do you like in the draft...?

                            Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                            I'd take the available player with the highest perceived upside. We have no glaring weaknesses, so we can afford to wait a few years on someone. Jerryd Bayless looks fantastic at Arizona, I'd love to see him declare and slip to us or even see us trade up to select him. He looks special. NBADraft.net has him going #6 this year, DraftExpress has him at #13 next year.
                            I can think of a huge glaring weakness.......outside of Marquis, Granger and ( maybe ) Shawne....we have poor perimeter defenders. I think that if we can get a very solid perimeter defender that can guard PGs and SGs....we would fix a huge gaping hole in our weaknesses.

                            Although I think that what happens in the offseason will dictate who we ultimately draft ( I really think that there is a good chance that Foster will bolt for Free Agency next season )....I really hope that whoever we draft a player that has a clue on how to properly defend the perimeter.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X