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

Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

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

  • #76
    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

    So where does Hibbert fit in when compared to Rik Smits? Smits wasn't exactly a gazelle. ...And his rebounding left something to be desired. ...But he was able to fill a role for this team.

    Is Hibbert's footspeed less than Smits'? Is his athleticism less than Smits?

    He seems to have size, a good attitude, and a strong grasp of fundamentals so I'm curious if we're seeing people knock him for not being Wilt Chamberlain or if we're just over-valuing athleticism to some point. We don't have to have the most athletic, fastest center to ever play the game manning the position. I'll be happy if he's solid. ...OTOH if you're saying his ceiling is somewhere under Rik Smits then I can understand the worries about quickness.
    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


    • #77
      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

      http://www.reuters.com/article/sport...BrandChannel=0

      Oden vs. Hibbert should be NCAA Tournament highlight

      By Steve Ginsburg

      ATLANTA (Reuters) - Ohio State's Greg Oden and Georgetown's Roy Hibbert have taken vastly different paths to their highly anticipated match-up in Saturday's semi-finals of the NCAA Tournament.

      Oden, a seven-foot, 280-pound freshman, made an immediate impact when he walked on campus and is expected to be the top pick in the NBA draft should he leave school after the season.

      Georgetown (30-6) has its own dominant big man, 7-foot-2 junior Hibbert, whose match-up against Oden should be one of the highlights of the tournament.

      In contrast to Oden, however, Hibbert was not an overnight success.

      "When you see Roy Hibbert today, he's so much different than what he was three years ago, two years ago when he walked in the door as a freshman, someone we literally had to show how to run, how to catch," Georgetown coach John Thompson III said.

      The winner of Saturday night's Ohio State-Georgetown affair will face either defending champion Florida or UCLA for the national title on Monday night.

      It is unlikely Georgetown would have gotten this far without the emergence of Hibbert, the Hoyas' second-leading scorer (12.7 points a game) and top rebounder (6.9) and shot-blocker (2.5).

      Thompson said the best is yet to come.

      "Four, five, 10 years from now, he'll be light years ahead of where he is now," Thompson said. "He is someone that is a sponge. He is someone that is extremely intelligent and has been extremely willing with everything that we've shown him."

      Ohio State coach Thad Matta is a believer, having watched Hibbert score 20 points, grab 14 rebounds and block three shots against the Buckeyes in the second round of last year's NCAA Tournament.

      "He's really fine-tuned all of his skills," Matta told reporters Friday. "He understands the game even better because he's a year older. I thought last year when we played him he was one of the best big men I'd seen.

      "Now watching him on film, I couldn't agree more. He's a tremendous talent. It's his athleticism. He moves well and he can finish around the basket with either hand. And the size factor is always going to be there."

      While Oden is the best center in the nation, averaging 15.4 points for the 34-4 Buckeyes, Hibbert is not far behind and should be an NBA lottery pick when he leaves Georgetown.


      I feel good about his potential by reading things like this. Now I understand the nickname "The Big Stiff". If he's progressed that much in 4 years, and he's 21, and he's willing, his only limit will be his conditioning and assertiveness.

      I wasn't super-thrilled with the pick, but I've liked everything I've read about him lately.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

        For those who watched the Hoyas fold against Curry, do you think that the gameplan was flawed or was it that Hibbert was making himself ineffective or what? Watching that game live really showed me at least how slow he was and how different he looked from the game vs Oden. All I was thinking during that game was, wow GTown needs a new coach, and Hibbert isn't going to play in the NBA. Just wondering because that's my POR for the guy.
        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          So where does Hibbert fit in when compared to Rik Smits? Smits wasn't exactly a gazelle. ...And his rebounding left something to be desired. ...But he was able to fill a role for this team.
          The NBA had to create a new category for Smits RTFIHH (Rebounds That Fell Into His Hands) or Rik wouldn't have had any.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            So where does Hibbert fit in when compared to Rik Smits? Smits wasn't exactly a gazelle. ...And his rebounding left something to be desired. ...But he was able to fill a role for this team.

            Is Hibbert's footspeed less than Smits'? Is his athleticism less than Smits?

            He seems to have size, a good attitude, and a strong grasp of fundamentals so I'm curious if we're seeing people knock him for not being Wilt Chamberlain or if we're just over-valuing athleticism to some point. We don't have to have the most athletic, fastest center to ever play the game manning the position. I'll be happy if he's solid. ...OTOH if you're saying his ceiling is somewhere under Rik Smits then I can understand the worries about quickness.
            I'm warming up to Hibbert and am now in wait-and-see mode. Primarily, I think the guy is going to learn how to be effective in the NBA....and I think he tends to step up to a challenge. As for the Smits comparison, Rik had a deadly midrange game. Hibbert is more likely to post-up, set screens and pass. If he works out, there will be intangibles he brings that will be quite valuable and will not show up on the stat sheet. Also, I've already seen enough of him to know he's not soft. He may be the most physical player we've had here in years...and although he will be slow motion, he will likely be smart enough to get in position and get fouled...and he can shoot from the line which is crucial for him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

              Some numbers from DX...
              http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...ter-Crop-2941/

              He ranked fairly high on most of the categories.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Is Hibbert's footspeed less than Smits'? Is his athleticism less than Smits?
                Remember how much of the time Smits had trouble with foot pain? He was limited by pain for much of his career. I haven't read anything suggesting Hibbert has similar problems, with feet or his back. So the kid can continue to add speed to his technique. As far as speed is concerned, Smits is Hibbert's floor, not his ceiling.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                  Hibbert was a steal at #17. Skilled 7'2" centers with high basketball IQs don't grow on trees. His median is Zydrunas Ilgauskas.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                    any one else hear the female sports writer that was on Eddie and Kravitz show earlier today. She was a writer from the Washington post, and she couldn't stop raving what kind of as person Hibbert is. He aways returned reporters phone calls and was always on time for interviws. Edie and bob said he sounded too good to be true, someone you would want to marrry your daughter

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      any one else hear the female sports writer that was on Eddie and Kravitz show earlier today. She was a writer from the Washington post, and she couldn't stop raving what kind of as person Hibbert is. He aways returned reporters phone calls and was always on time for interviws. Edie and bob said he sounded too good to be true, someone you would want to marrry your daughter
                      I heard it.

                      Pacers really hit a homerun with character in this draft with Hibbert and Rush. As much as I talked about Speights, He seemed to have character concerns. I am glad we got Hibbert instead. Though Speights was at the top of a lot of the categories Placebo posted too... Don't be surprised to see Philly in the playoffs again next year.
                      "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


                      • #86
                        Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        And that's OK for a rookie big man. I'm not so sure Oden will start right away. He'll be behind Rasho, Foster and Murphy on the depth chart anyway.
                        We picked up Oden in that trade???? Awesome!
                        Play Mafia!
                        Twitter

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                          In preparation for my upcoming 2009 draft analysis threads that will begin later in May, I thought it would be fun to review the analysis I and everyone else gave on the players we would eventually end up with on draft night.

                          We can all review what we stated that ended up being right, or being wrong.

                          Tbird

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                            Wow. Good call here, tbird. We're reading it a year later, but you nailed it exactly.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                              Yeah I would say this one was dead on. I think you were pretty close on Rush as well though I think you underated his defense a bit. Pretty immpressive anyway.
                              "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


                              • #90
                                Re: Tbird draft analysis: Roy Hibbert

                                Hibbert is a guy you can real pull for.
                                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X