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

Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

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

  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

    These were my comments on these guys from mid-January. Might have been my first mention of them in this thread (page 3). Shows what I mean about how they've played all year.

    NBADraft.net still has Rush (KS) going 28th. No freaking way does that happen if his year keeps up. If Indy lets him go by before that they should be shot, unless they have some solid lottery pick slot instead. And if he's really still projected there then they really need to find a way to trade for a late first pick.

    They have Chalmers coming out next year (doubt it) and going in the early 2nd round (double doubt it). Maybe I'm just misreading their games, but they look very NBA polished to me. Both are well over 40% from the college 3 this season.

    The also have Douglas-Roberts coming out next year and going even later in the draft than Chalmers. Either 2009 is loaded beyond belief or I'm a total idiot. Something doesn't mesh with how these guys have been playing.


    edit - HoopsHype has D-Rob going this year and 13th. Much more realistic to me. No Chalmers (declaration guess?) but they have Rush going 28th too with the Pacers taking Lopez (PF). Now Rush is listed as an SF but he's a shooter and even their comparison (HHype) is to Eddie Jones, which to me seems about right by style at least.

    I haven't watched much Lopez yet but I just don't see a PF as the pick. A star pure C like Hibbert, maybe Love or White if a move can be made, but for the most part I don't know why quality shooters that can defend at the SG spot would be overlooked.
    Also relative were these comments from Jan 6th (before the previous)
    Kevin Love is damn impressive. Now he's no athlete and perhaps a bit undersized in a Sean May way. He won't tear up the low post in the NBA, at least not as is. BUT, he's a worker on the boards, modestly crafty, and by far the best outlet passer in the draft. In fact even in the half court he makes strong, long skip passes. He can find guys and get them the ball safely.

    Love's teammate Collison...underwhelming. Haven't seen the vision from him in the few games I've watched. Gets himself into tough spots to pass from ala Fred Jones. Just not as ready as you'd like, and could never really click above modest backup. If a guy like Love is on the board I'd take him instead, in spite of "need".

    I have to watch again because I wasn't looking for him specifically at the time, but I think it was Chalmers at Kansas that was really impressive the other day (had a good box, but I need to watch to be sure). Both he and Rush are interesting, and that team as a whole plays solid ball. Neither have declared that I know of but I would think either of them could after a title run.

    For the same reason I think Douglas-Roberts and Dorsey at Memphis could also become interesting options. Like Kansas they win with quality all-around play and have several good athletes. I almost think Rose should stay more than some of these other players.


    From below (via edit)
    The biggest question I see with Rush is wether he can create his own
    shot off the bounce vs NBA quality SG's. His handle was shaky enough
    in traffic last night to make me wonder. If not, he's a catch-and-shoot
    guy with a shot that's not overly consistent.
    I can agree with this. He does have a few dribble moves, but he's not a total scorer. Thus my desire to have him as a bench SG rather than a starter.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-08-2008, 02:18 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

      The biggest question I see with Rush is wether he can create his own
      shot off the bounce vs NBA quality SG's. His handle was shaky enough
      in traffic last night to make me wonder. If not, he's a catch-and-shoot
      guy with a shot that's not overly consistent.

      As for CDR, I was a doubter. But he has just enough Rip Hamilton-esque,
      unorthodox, herky-jerkiness to get by at SG in the NBA. He's not quite
      the athlete or shooter that Rip is. But he does a decent impression.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

        I would love to find a team willing to give up their first round pick this year and another first round pick in '09 or '10 for our current pick at 10-13. Moving down in the draft and getting more picks for the future would help this team drastically. Think about having the 20-30 pick this year and getting a Chalmers, CDR, Collison, DJ White, Hibbert, or Lester Hudson and knowing we will be having two mid level first rounders next year. We also have a very decent second round pick this year.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

          My friend put it the best way when it comes to drafting players out of college. Draft the player that has consistently played well throughout the entire year and the NCAA Tournament. These are the players that can play at a decent level because they are consistent in their production for extended periods of time. You can probably make an educated guess as to how they will perform only because you know that they have always produced at that level.

          As Speed pointed out.....there are players that make careers out having a solid run in the NCAA Championships. Much like how Jerome James duped Zeke into giving him a overpaid contract when he outplayed Chris Webber in a single NBA Playoff Series....I would prefer not to draft a player that didn't show up for most of the year then plays out of his mind in the NCAA Tournament. To me....those players may have potential....but are ( what I would consider ) gambles. IMHO....good players play good all the time...not just during the last month of the season. That's why I would prefer to draft someone like Love and Rush....to me...those are players that have consistently played very well throughout the course of the season as opposed to when the spotlight is shining on them.

          It's always good to gamble on a player with potential....but when it comes to our current situation and our immediate future over the next 2 seasons.....I don't feel that we can gamble on someone that has potential and has some "work to do" to improve their game to get to the NBA level....we simply do not have the luxury or the patience to wait.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
            I would love to find a team willing to give up their first round pick this year and another first round pick in '09 or '10 for our current pick at 10-13. Moving down in the draft and getting more picks for the future would help this team drastically. Think about having the 20-30 pick this year and getting a Chalmers, CDR, Collison, DJ White, Hibbert, or Lester Hudson and knowing we will be having two mid level first rounders next year. We also have a very decent second round pick this year.
            If you replace Hibbert with Thabeet then I am cool with it. I really believe his is going to be a better pro than Hibbert.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              If you replace Hibbert with Thabeet then I am cool with it. I really believe his is going to be a better pro than Hibbert.
              I just like the idea of trading down w/ another team. They have to be willing to trade us their first round pick in '09 or '10 but several teams have a lot of picks (Timberwolves & Sonics). Having more picks would also make offseason trades more likely w/ other team ie we give you Tinsley and our first rounder for _______, _______, and your draft selection.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Much like how Jerome James duped Zeke into giving him a overpaid contract when he outplayed Chris Webber in a single NBA Playoff Series....
                FTR, James was playing for the Sonics and by then (2005 playoffs) Webber had already been traded to the 76ers. But yeah, James had a very good series against the Kings and basically rode it to a huge contract.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                  Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                  The biggest question I see with Rush is wether he can create his own
                  shot off the bounce vs NBA quality SG's.
                  The answer to that is pretty much no.

                  This guy is a SF on the offensive side of the ball at the NBA level. Don't draft this guy hoping he'll score or create any kind of offense for you. He's definitely not worth taking in the range that the Pacers will pick. He's a #18-25 type of guy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                    If Westbrook is gone by 11-12, I'd be tempted to reach and take CDR this high...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                      Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                      If Westbrook is gone by 11-12, I'd be tempted to reach and take CDR this high...
                      Does he have a good work ethic, I think I've seen him compared to Ron Mercer who also never met a shot he didn't like. I'm trying to not have too much of an opinion with the limited amount I've seen him play though.
                      Last edited by Speed; 04-08-2008, 04:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                        Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                        If Westbrook is gone by 11-12, I'd be tempted to reach and take CDR this high...
                        Theres no way I would.. Gotta remember.. Were stacked at that spot already. Theres plenty of skilled players out there we could grab.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                          Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                          Theres no way I would.. Gotta remember.. Were stacked at that spot already. Theres plenty of skilled players out there we could grab.
                          I'm just not liking the other options - project Cs like Jordan or McGee, the latter of which I could see.

                          I've seen CDR compared to Stackhouse. I'm impressed by his shooting, ability to create, penetrate and slash and tough-minded defense.

                          Picking him up, he'd be a true SG,which we all know the best true SG the Pacers have is Rush, who at best is a very good backup SG and might be on another team next year. (There's another thread relating to the lack of a top tier PG and SG on the Pacers. I figure go ahead and fill one if given the chance.)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                            Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                            I'm just not liking the other options - project Cs like Jordan or McGee, the latter of which I could see.

                            I've seen CDR compared to Stackhouse. I'm impressed by his shooting, ability to create, penetrate and slash and tough-minded defense.

                            Picking him up, he'd be a true SG,which we all know the best true SG the Pacers have is Rush, who at best is a very good backup SG and might be on another team next year. (There's another thread relating to the lack of a top tier PG and SG on the Pacers. I figure go ahead and fill one if given the chance.)
                            Ya, that's true.. And who knows who will be on our roster next year?? Seems like we will have a lot of trades done in the off-season.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                              I could understand a Augustine or Westbrook, but I still think we should go big. That said, I still like R.Hibbert. I think he fell due to staying "consistant" rather then "improving" his #'s t/y & GT's early exit. I just feel at 7'2"/265#, & a history of having more advanced skills on "O" & "D", e is getting lost in the "up-side" lure of some of these freshman/ sophomore ( Jordan/ Randolph/ McGee/ Thabeet). I like Roy over any of these kids. Maybe I am under-estimating some of the hidden "Garnett/ Bosh-esk" talent those kids have, but I also see far less "Bender/Kwame-esk" bust possibilities as well.
                              "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                              (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                                Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                                I could understand a Augustine or Westbrook, but I still think we should go big. That said, I still like R.Hibbert. I think he fell due to staying "consistant" rather then "improving" his #'s t/y & GT's early exit. I just feel at 7'2"/265#, & a history of having more advanced skills on "O" & "D", e is getting lost in the "up-side" lure of some of these freshman/ sophomore ( Jordan/ Randolph/ McGee/ Thabeet). I like Roy over any of these kids. Maybe I am under-estimating some of the hidden "Garnett/ Bosh-esk" talent those kids have, but I also see far less "Bender/Kwame-esk" bust possibilities as well.
                                Bender. I loved the guy.. He was supposed to be our future.. But those darn legs couldn't hold up for 5 games!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X