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

  • #46
    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.
    well that would just be my opinion. i've also never recommended breaking the bank for him. i like him but i see some weaknesses in his game despite my IU-homerishness. obviously others believe he's more than that. i don't.

    EDIT: actually let me clarify... i don't believe he is dwyane wade. i do think he's a little better passer and defender than ben gordon but i haven't been convinced he's as extraordinary of an NBA prospect as some make him out to be. i have never watched him play in person either or outside of IU. so take what i say with that grain of salt.
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 02-01-2008, 04:12 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • #47
      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.

      Mal,
      That is the question I have. Fred Jones might not be a bad comparison. The only reason Gordon has more upside is because he still has time to show more before the ink dries on his scouting report.

      A lot of the 'wow' in Gordon's game is getting neutralized by stiffer competition. Teams know not to leave him open from long distance and his lack of size means a taller player can really neutralize his 3 ball. And interior defenses are just not letting him get to the rim that often.

      I need to pay more attention to his defense to see where he's at there. Many times I don't know enough about the player he's guarding to really know if he's keeping someone in check or not... and I don't remember any highlight reel defensive plays.

      -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


      • #48
        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.
        Good Lord anyone who compares Eric Gordon to Ben Gordon is just plain stupid. I'm sorry they are not even close to being the same player. Gordon is so much stronger its just plain silly, also his defense is much better, and hes probably a better shooter. Not only that he's already a much better athlete.


        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

          Originally posted by Indy View Post
          Good Lord anyone who compares Eric Gordon to Ben Gordon is just plain stupid. I'm sorry they are not even close to being the same player. Gordon is so much stronger its just plain silly, also his defense is much better, and hes probably a better shooter. Not only that he's already a much better athlete.
          Would you like to clarify which Gordon your talking about. I mean I'm pretty sure which one your talking about, but I like people to say what they mean. This is the Internet you know.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            Would you like to clarify which Gordon your talking about. I mean I'm pretty sure which one your talking about, but I like people to say what they mean. This is the Internet you know.
            I'm clearly talking about Eric.


            Comment


            • #51
              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.
              He can shoot, get to the rim (and finish), and is quick. He also has good handles.

              On defense, he's undersized, but he does play a little physical, so he's not like a Saras or Diener on the defensive end.

              He's not a horrible passer. He's at least as good as Wade in that respect. He has good court vision and is usually looking to hit the open man, even while in the act of shooting. Unlike Fred Jones, however, he doesn't get caught in midair with his pants down.

              EJ needs to develop more of a midrange game; that's his #1 weakness right now.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                He can shoot, get to the rim (and finish), and is quick. He also has good handles.

                On defense, he's undersized, but he does play a little physical, so he's not like a Saras or Diener on the defensive end.

                He's not a horrible passer. He's at least as good as Wade in that respect. He has good court vision and is usually looking to hit the open man, even while shooting.

                EJ needs to develop more of a midrange game; that's his #1 weakness right now.


                In addition to this, I think he is a legit go-to scoring option. I think one of the pacers problems is a lack of that guy. We are team full of second option players. If we had a guy like gordon that would command a lot of defensive attention it would free up the second banana players a lot more. Plus he is that guy who can create his own shot, a good person to have for those times when the offense gets really stagnant and we can't seem to get a much needed basket in crunch time.

                I'm not entirely convinced he could not learn to play point guard in the NBA either, I have seen him make some nice passes, and a lot of his turnovers seem to result from his teammates not being ready/aware of the ball coming to them. He has the ability to break down a defense and kick it out to the open man.

                Maybe someone with a better basketball mind than myself can tell me, is there any reason he could not become a high scoring point guard in the style of a Gilbert Arenas?
                Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 02-02-2008, 12:02 AM.
                "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


                • #53
                  Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                  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).
                  You are right, GM's are right among that group but their opinion matters and this guys doesn't. His opinion matters about as much as mine or yours (well yours ).

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                    Right now I'm sure Beasley is the #1 pick in the draft. He's head and shoulders above everyone else. I'm picking Gordon if I'm looking for a shooter and he's actually 6'4.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                      I've probably seen EJ play about 50 times (25-30 live in HS/AAU
                      and every IU this year). I'm not sure he'll ever be quite as good
                      as Wade is right now. He's not quite the explosive, fluid athlete
                      that Wade is. But Wade is what, 25 or 26 yrs old ? Go find some
                      tape of Wade as an 18-yr old at Marquette. EJ is much better
                      than D-Wade was at that point in his career.

                      EJ will be a very good NBA player. His shooting touch and range
                      alone will make him a constant threat and open the court for his
                      teamates. His shortcomings are his handle in traffic and lack of
                      a mid-range pull-up game. He'll develop the latter, but his hands
                      are a bit smaller than is ideal and it limits him a bit handling the
                      ball under duress against comparable athletes.

                      I'm not sure I'd take EJ with a top-3 pick in this draft. But I'd sure
                      take him anywhere in the 5-10 range. Especially if I'm the Pacers
                      with a crying need for a go-to guy in the backcourt.

                      As for the Fred Jones comparison someone made, don't make me
                      laugh. Fred had minimal hoops-IQ and couldn't go to his left to
                      save his life.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                        Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                        I've probably seen EJ play about 50 times (25-30 live in HS/AAU
                        and every IU this year). I'm not sure he'll ever be quite as good
                        as Wade is right now. He's not quite the explosive, fluid athlete
                        that Wade is. But Wade is what, 25 or 26 yrs old ? Go find some
                        tape of Wade as an 18-yr old at Marquette. EJ is much better
                        than D-Wade was at that point in his career.

                        EJ will be a very good NBA player. His shooting touch and range
                        alone will make him a constant threat and open the court for his
                        teamates. His shortcomings are his handle in traffic and lack of
                        a mid-range pull-up game. He'll develop the latter, but his hands
                        are a bit smaller than is ideal and it limits him a bit handling the
                        ball under duress against comparable athletes.

                        I'm not sure I'd take EJ with a top-3 pick in this draft. But I'd sure
                        take him anywhere in the 5-10 range. Especially if I'm the Pacers
                        with a crying need for a go-to guy in the backcourt.

                        As for the Fred Jones comparison someone made, don't make me
                        laugh. Fred had minimal hoops-IQ and couldn't go to his left to
                        save his life.
                        At this point, the Fred Jones comparison seems to be right on target. Neither can go left with any effectiveness. Similar defensive abilities, undersized at the 2, good leaping and driving ability, lots of turnovers, not a great passer to name a few. I do however think and hope that Gordon has alot more upside. He also would help attendance if the Pacers could land him.
                        “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.



                          There's Gordon standing next to Derrick Rose, who's height is also questionable. I've seen him listed from 6'2"-6'4" (ESPN has him at 6'3"). Gordon is about 2" taller, which would make the 6'4" claim realistic and the 6'5" not out of the question, although I don't think he's quite that tall. Eric has a wide, muscular frame, so that would likely make him look slightly shorter than he actually is.

                          My guess - 6'4"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                            Originally posted by dlewyus View Post
                            At this point, the Fred Jones comparison seems to be right on target. Neither can go left with any effectiveness. Similar defensive abilities, undersized at the 2, good leaping and driving ability, lots of turnovers, not a great passer to name a few. I do however think and hope that Gordon has alot more upside. He also would help attendance if the Pacers could land him.
                            EJ is already better than FJ ever was, or ever will be.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                              Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
                              You are right, GM's are right among that group but their opinion matters and this guys doesn't. His opinion matters about as much as mine or yours (well yours ).
                              Matters != correct.

                              Hollinger is being ripped for being "wrong", and by other people with no more history of being right than he has for the protection of the people that do matter who also have a history of being wrong.

                              In other words what harm is there in his opinions, especially if they "don't matter"? Maybe he's struck upon some insight that others are overlooking. I mean he could be right about some players, what's the harm in hearing it now if that's true?

                              I think he fuels some good discussion on players. He certainly asks people to defend what measures they think determine which players will have NBA success.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Hollinger> Beasley has most pro potential among collegians. EDIT; Gordons rank not listed.

                                might help if someone with insider access would post hollinger's earlier article ranking the 2007 rookies. that would put the believability of his system front and center for everyone to judge.

                                if i remember correctly, hollinger's system looks at some unintuitive stats - say, steals for big men or offensive rebounds for guards - which hollinger deduced to be indicators of nba ability, extrapolating from past data. it seems to be pure number crunching rather than based on observation, and i think that's why many people are quick to pin the label of lies, darn lies, and statistics

                                unfortunately the system seems to fluctuate quite a bit - hollinger himself points to the possibility of short term flukes and indicates that several players might change status before season's end. personally, i think this is due to the esoteric nature of the stats he tracks (things like steals and o-rebs) which are not as abundant as say, points or rebounds, and so are more prone to statistical error.

                                overall, i would say that system seems interesting, and and bears watching, but i wouldn't bet the franchise on it just yet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X