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

Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

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

  • #31
    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

    I think Gordon could very realistically be there at #7 due to his lack of height.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

      I'm not saying you don't draft him 5-10, he MIGHT be the best player in that range. Hard to tell after only half a NCAA season, but my point is people are talking about trading a 10th-ish pick and Granger for him. Talk like that is laughable considering it's fairly likely that Granger is the better NBA player alone, let alone adding a pick.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        I'm not saying you don't draft him 5-10, he MIGHT be the best player in that range. Hard to tell after only half a NCAA season, but my point is people are talking about trading a 10th-ish pick and Granger for him. Talk like that is laughable considering it's fairly likely that Granger is the better NBA player alone, let alone adding a pick.
        I'll bet you anything that EJ ends up being the better player between him and Granger.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          He's listed at ESPN as 6'5. I don't think 6'5 is undersized. For example Wade is listed at 6'4.

          Of course I've seen Gordon listed from 6'2 to 6'5. We'll see at draft camp.

          He was 6-4 but lately I've seen the 6-5 number pop up as well. I'm just going by watching him on the court. He just doesn't look 6-4 out there compared to the other players.

          I certainly don't believe he's 6-5. I think 6-3 would be stretching it. I'm betting that his height has become an issue in the NBA scouting circles and so his handlers have decided to add another inch to him on paper to try and silence that some. BUT- I imagine most of that talk comes from the same place my critique comes from- Seeing him on the court and realizing he's not 6-4 or 6-5.

          I think he's probably closer to 6-2 than 6-5...

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

            I hope he's closer to 6'2"...please god let him drop.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

              Definitely not 6-4. I think 6-2 3/4 is probably about right. He does seem to hunch at times, though.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                Before we do, let's make sure you take this list with the proper mouthful of salt. Because this is based on a half-season, we're looking at samples of 400-600 minutes from most of these players. Thus, short-term flukes can have a dramatic impact on the rankings. Additionally, in a universe as vast as Division I college basketball, with minutes samples of this size, one should expect a couple of players who don't really belong to creep into the top of the list just by chance. In a couple of cases, it appears that is what might have happened.

                Additionally, a lot of teams play cupcakes in the first half of the season and pad their stats against bad teams. I have a schedule adjustment in the rankings, but it's possible it doesn't deal with this harshly enough; we'll know better once we see the year-end rankings in April.

                Finally, this whole system relies on heights and birthdates being correctly reported. If either isn't the case, then the whole thing blows up. With the reputation college heights have for being inflated, this factor is of particular concern.
                In other words Hollinger >>> you
                He's noted numerous caveats and discussed his methodology and desire to continue to improve it.

                Contrast that with the standard retort to his points - "dude's stupid, stats lie, my boy (player X) is the bomb, this list is terrible". Brilliant I'll admit, but not really chock full o hard facts that contradict his points.

                Or in other words, where's your lists from the past that we can see as proof of your talent evaluation, or what is your current system and would you please post it so we can compare it to the actual outcomes 3 years from now, as Hollinger clearly has done (gone out on a limb).


                I really tire of how much guys like Hollinger and Stien get ripped despite the immense amount of effort and observation they put into the ENTIRE NBA (and NCAA prospects) in order to form their opinions. And stuff like the playoff and draft predictors aren't even clear Hollinger opinions, more like data experiments to see if you can identify something from the numbers. Has the guy ever said "this is fact and this system is perfect"? Of course he hasn't.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                  He missed the early part of the season when most of these guys were padding their stats against the St. Leo's and IUPUIs of the world
                  w00t

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                    All these "experts" are always right, GMs should take note of this for Draft day.

                    (Insert large amounts of sarcasm, for you passive readers.)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                      On the list itself, Hollinger makes a good point across the board on players. If they have all this talent, where are the results? Numbers don't come from thin air, you DO things and people ADD THEM UP. If they don't add up then it means you DID NOT DO THEM.

                      Sheesh.

                      Now it's way too early to have a certain feel on any player. It's fun to discuss as things go along, but most of us know that the real tests lie in the conference and NCAA tourneys.

                      I've defended Mayo as an NBA prospect, but the dings on his rating are pretty accurate. He does force the action and lets his frustration result in poor shot selection. Rose, too, is a guy we've been noting as perhaps needing another year to touch up his game.

                      Thabeet has always been very erratic, he's a prospect not a guy currently ready to go, thus he wouldn't show up in the NCAA numbers.

                      And BTW, just how did Kobe rate on this system? Hollinger knows this I'm sure. Some players are picked on what they COULD be rather than what they've shown so far.

                      A system based on NCAA results only would ignore "upside". That's not reality. But on the other side of the debate a team drafting soley on upside knows it hasn't yet panned out and might never do so.

                      If you see Gordon NOW and say "he's getting it done like a top NBA prospect would" it would appear you are overrating him. OTOH if you are admitting that he's not really proven much so far but think that he will develop into that type of player after a few seasons in the NBA then that's different.

                      Anyway, it's pretty clear that Beasley is the real deal at this point, barring injury or off-court issues.


                      Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
                      All these "experts" are always right, GMs should take note of this for Draft day.

                      (Insert large amounts of sarcasm, for you passive readers.)
                      GM's are members of the "experts" group, and as such they have a nice list of misses themselves. Name one draft where the first 20-30 players taken ended up with career rankings in something close to that exact order, and with no stars drafted later than that (ie, Redd or Arenas or Parker).
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-01-2008, 02:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I'll bet you anything that EJ ends up being the better player between him and Granger.
                        We're going to have to get you into gambling Rehab with UncleBuck.



                        You haven't mooched on any PIE bets lately have you?

                        I mean at least Unclebuck stopped at $1 Million. You are betting ANYTHING. I think you may have a problem.....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                          So what exactly does Gordon do for us if we get him? I'm not talking PR or fans or that stuff, I'm talking on the court. Hearing he can't pass lowers my hype considerably. He's starting to sound like a more polished Fred Jones.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            So what exactly does Gordon do for us if we get him? I'm not talking PR or fans or that stuff, I'm talking on the court. Hearing he can't pass lowers my hype considerably. He's starting to sound like a more polished Fred Jones.
                            way better shooter than fred. i'd say he's really similar to the gordon that grace watches (undersized, shooter, not really NBA PG/combo material)
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                              So he's Ben Gordon? We're drooling over Ben Gordon now? I mean Ben's a good player, but he's no savior-- or even close.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                                So he's Ben Gordon? We're drooling over Ben Gordon now? I mean Ben's a good player, but he's no savior-- or even close.
                                Ben Gordon that's 10X the athlete.

                                He can pass, but he's passing to players that aren't on his level. He'll make a tough pass that's not caught and either goes out of bounds or they fumble it and the defender picks the ball up.

                                Should he have made the pass? No, but not because it wasn't a good pass to make or couldn't get through.

                                He's also playing through an injured wrist right now, and struggling in Wisconsin was expected. IU hasn't won in Madison WI for over 10yrs now.

                                EDIT: Gordon's biggest problem right now is that he doesn't have that gamer's mentality that he's gonna get the ball and just take over. Part of it is him, part of it is his stupid teammates.

                                After Gordon scored 10straight Ellis decides to shoot a wild turn around shot with a defender all over him with 15 seconds left in the shot clock down by 5. They really don't set him up to take over and he doesn't demand it.
                                Last edited by Since86; 02-01-2008, 04:07 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X