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:
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

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

NBA Draft Prospects 2023

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    I need Kris Murray though
    Not with our first pick. Let’s trade the Cavs and Celtics pick for a late lottery pick for Murray
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    • Walker could give us a lot of hope.

      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


      • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Walker could give us a lot of hope.

        Assuming that the Pacers don't get a top 4 pick and he's off the board by the time the Pacers pick, whose your next guy on your Big Board?
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


        • Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Assuming that the Pacers don't get a top 4 pick and he's off the board by the time the Pacers pick, whose your next guy on your Big Board?
          Either one of the twins and if they are gone I'll be OK with Black.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


          • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Walker could give us a lot of hope.

            He’s athletic. Some mocks have time outside of the lottery
            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


            • Comment

              • Originally posted by Wage View Post
                Random draft takes before too much of the tournament takes place:

                Brandon Miller will pass Scoot as the number 2 pick on most mocks. He would go #1 in most drafts.

                Jarace Walker needs to show he's a dude in this tourney or I think he is a pass in the lotto with how deep this draft is. Again love his size and skillset but he's just so damn soft and passive.

                Caught up with a bunch of OTE games on Amazon and the twins are legit. Amen is like an even more athletic Anthony Edwards (which is crazy to say) and Ausar is almost as athletic and a lot more skilled.

                Jordan Hawkins mocking in the 20s will just flat out be a better player than Dick who is mocking lottery. I think Dick ends up getting the Duncan Robinson treatment where he looks amazing until you realize he is completely unplayable in the playoffs due to being flat out trash on defense.

                I still have all my Dariq Whitehead stock and I'm not coming off it.

                I'm coming around on Edey if he is available mid second round. I think he will be unplayable in the playoffs but can help win a few regular season games for sure.

                Is TJD the next Draymond Green? I'm starting to think he could be.

                One last time for the cheap seats, the teams that Pass on DaRon Holmes are going to regret it. He will be at least as good as Ayton, and Ayton is really good.

                I love this draft. If I had an expansion team with no players but 2 lotto picks and 8 other mid to late first rounders in this draft I could build a team that makes the playoffs in 3 years.

                Final oddball question:

                Would my fellow PDers trade Mathurin and Duarte for Barnes and the Toronto first? I think I would and Mathurin was one of my absolute faves last draft and I like him even more now. Mostly because I think we could backfill him with so many guys in this draft and Barnes and that pick would be nice. Hard call though.
                Hell no on the Barnes trade. He's arguably regressed this year.

                ​​​Greens an interesting comp for TJD. Dude just keeps getting better so I wouldn't put it past him. How high would you take him? I'd rather have him than Hood-Shifino and I like JHS. I have him at 18. While we're at it, how high you taking Holmes and Dariq?

                ​If you think Jerace is soft, watch the second half of last nights game. I think he scored like 5 points but he was clearly the most impactful player on the floor. Those type of players are rare. There's almost cero chance he falls out of the top 10 IMO.


                • I can't say I know a ton about either of these guys but I have Bilal over Rayan Rupert. I really don't see what the hype is with Rupert other than freakishly long arms.

                  Last edited by CJ Jones; 03-19-2023, 02:08 PM.


                  • I said this months ago. This kids got big upside. Hes got a reported 40 inch vert as well. With his recent play, I've moved him up into the 1st round (30th)


                    • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      I need Kris Murray though
                      He struggled toward the end of the season and that's good for the Pacers because you know they want him. Hope he falls to the Cleveland pick.


                      • As I said on the 1st page... Jarace Walker has to be the guy with our earliest pick if he is there. That is a must. Do whatever with the other picks, but Jarace is a must selection for the Pacers.


                        • Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

                          Hell no on the Barnes trade. He's arguably regressed this year.

                          ​​​Greens an interesting comp for TJD. Dude just keeps getting better so I wouldn't put it past him. How high would you take him? I'd rather have him than Hood-Shifino and I like JHS. I have him at 18. While we're at it, how high you taking Holmes and Dariq?

                          ​If you think Jerace is soft, watch the second half of last nights game. I think he scored like 5 points but he was clearly the most impactful player on the floor. Those type of players are rare. There's almost cero chance he falls out of the top 10 IMO.

                          Yeah Barnes has regressed a bit, which is the only reason a hypothetical like this could even be mentioned. Even my proposal has Benn with quite a bit more value than Barnes, which I'm not sure would be true around the league. I just think a core of say Hali, Benn, and Walker has a much lower ceiling than say Hali, Ausur, GG, and Barnes. Probably never really be offered, but thought it was interesting to think about and I love Mathurin.

                          I probably still have TJD in late 20s, but that is mostly because I love the depth of the draft. Dariq I have in the late teens to just outside lottery range. Kind of a lazy Duke comparison but I think his worst case scenario is a rich man's AJ Griffin, which is a very good piece. Holmes I have as the best center not named Wemby in the draft which puts him early 20s I think.

                          And yeah I will sit alone on my Walker hater island. And again I actually don't dislike his game except for how soft he is. He could be 6'4 195 lbs and still be the same guy. If we were loaded with top end talent I could maybe talk myself into him for his high floor and fit as a connective piece and defender, but a team that is struggling for star power cant waste a top 10 pick on a guy with a 0% chance of becoming a star.


                          • 0% chance really? Jarace is gonna be an all NBA level guy defensively. His path to stardom is clearer than Brandon Miller's IMO. And I'll lay out my case against Brandon
                            ​​​​​​sometime soon so it doesn't look like I'm just a hater.

                            ​AJ Griffin's a good Dariq comp.
                            Last edited by CJ Jones; 03-21-2023, 01:36 PM.


                            • Sweet 16 update. This covers the g league/conference tourneys up to now...

                              1) Victor
                              2) Scoot
                              3) Amen Thompson
                              4) Ausur Thompson (+)
                              5) Jarace Walker
                              6) Anthony Black
                              7) Cam Whitmore
                              8) Taylor Hendricks
                              9) GG Jackson II (-)
                              10) Brandon Miller
                              11) Keyonte George
                              12) Gradey Dick
                              13) Sidy Cissoko (+)
                              14) Brice Sensabaugh
                              15) Cason Wallace (-)
                              16) Kris Murray
                              17) Leonard Miller
                              18) Trayce Jackson-Davis (+)
                              19) Nick Smith Jr. (-)
                              20) Dariq Whitehead
                              21) Jalen Hood-Shifino
                              22) DaRon Holmes II
                              23) Derick Lively
                              24) Maxwell Lewis
                              25) Jordan Hawkins
                              26) Mike Mitchell Jr.
                              27) Terrence Shannon Jr.
                              28) Jett Howard
                              29) Bilal Coulibaly (+)
                              30) Jordan Walsh (+)
                              31) Azuolas Tubelis
                              32) Terquavion Smith
                              33) Noah Clowney
                              34) Colby Jones (+)
                              35) Kyle Filipowski (-)
                              36) Trevon Brazile
                              37) Rayan Rupert
                              38) Adem Bona (+)
                              39) Julian Phillips
                              40) Baba Miller
                              41) Kel'el Ware
                              42) James Nnaji
                              43) Nikola Djurisic
                              44) Mike Miles Jr.
                              45) Marcus Sasser
                              46) Julian Strawther
                              47) Ricky Counsil IV
                              48) Kobe Bufkin
                              49) Keyontae Johnson
                              50) Zach Edey
                              51) Grant Nelson
                              52) Jalen Wilson
                              53) Brandin Podzeimski
                              54) Judah Mintz
                              55) Jamie Jaquez Jr.


                              • I think the Thompson twins are overrated. Give me Brandon Miller over them any day