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

41'st pick

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #61
    Re: 41'st pick

    One interesting guy who'd be available at 41 (or later if we want to pull a Stanko and trade a future 2nd for a later pick) would be Mike Taylor. It sounds like he's got some significant character issues in his past, but his upside just may be worth it. Here's the Draft Express write up on him:

    http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mike-Taylor-5211

    NBA Pre-Draft Camp, Day Three
    May 30, 2008
    For the winners, Mike Taylor continues to help his stock by showing possibly the most athleticism of any guard in this camp. He was simply a blur in the open floor, weaving his way in and out of traffic being impossible to stay in front of even in the half-court, a looking relentlessly explosive finishing around the basket. He was a man on a mission today, making emphatic plays that clearly left a strong impression in the eyes of decision makers who had never seen him before. His perimeter shot comes better than advertised, as he displayed by pulling up off the dribble from mid-range and killing his defender for going underneath a screen, while also knocking down 2 of his 5 attempts from behind the NBA arc. He also made two very nice reads in the half-court, in back to back possessions, making good reads to slashing cutters moving off the ball for easy finishes. He’s clearly more of a shooting guard than a point, but seems to have the instincts for that not to be as much of a factor these days as it may have been a few years back. He needs to continue to be unselfish and maybe bring it up a notch on the defensive end, but you can’t argue with how well he’s played here so far. He definitely has a chance to get drafted.
    [Read Full Article]

    NBA Pre-Draft Camp, Day Two
    May 29, 2008
    Also a very pleasant surprise was the play of D-League product Mike Taylor—a 6-2 combo guard in the Louis Williams mold with freakish athleticism and terrific scoring instincts. He got to the basket at will, made some nice plays pulling up from mid-range, finished with a nifty floater, and hit one of his three 3-pointers (something scouts will be scrutinizing closely here). On the downside, he seemed to force the issue excessively at times—turning the ball over a game-high 5 times in the process), struggled a bit with his rail-thin frame fighting through screens and barely saw any minutes at the point at all. He clearly looks like an undersized shooting guard, but might just have the physical tools, scoring ability and overall ability to overcome that. It will be very interesting to continue to follow him.
    [Read Full Article]

    NBA D-League Showcase, Day Four
    January 18, 2008
    Mike Taylor is the type of story you find on occasion in the D-League. A 21 year old former Junior College standout, Taylor spent his lone year in college playing for Iowa State, where he had a terrific season, averaging 16 points and 4.5 assists on his way to All-Big 10 honors. From there things seemed to go downhill for him, as he was kicked of the team after being arrested on more than one occasion. He first tried enrolling at a Division II school, but when that didn’t work out, went to go play in the D-League instead, and actually had himself a terrific performance at the D-League showcase.

    Taylor is a superb athlete, possibly one of the quickest players we saw in our four days in Boise. He’s also an excellent ball-handler, able to change directions quickly and get to the rim in strong fashion, where he can finish in a variety of ways. Taylor can also shoot the ball with NBA range, as he displayed knocking down a barrage of 3-pointers in just a few short minutes to bury Fort Wayne in the 3rd quarter. He’s a streak scorer who can heat up just as fast as he can cool down.

    In an off the bench sparkplug role playing in a wide open setting such as this, Taylor is outstanding, but where he might get himself into some trouble is when he’s forced to think and make plays in the half-court. He’s quite wild with the ball at times, driving with his head down at full speed into the paint, and jacking up terrible shots off the dribble without even thinking about looking around to see if one of his teammates are open. That doesn’t come as that much of a surprise when you consider that Taylor shot 37% from the field last year and averaged just under 5 and a half turnovers per game, playing for one of the worst teams in the Big 12.

    No one will deny the talent Taylor has at his disposal, but if he’s going to make a career in basketball, he’s going to have to first prove that he’s put his considerable baggage behind him. Playing here in Idaho is a nice start.
    [Read Full Article]
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: 41'st pick

      Speaking as an Iowa State student, we don't want Taylor. Like... imagine if Iverson called his number even more often, had less dribbling skills, and couldn't shoot very well.

      Yea... pretty sweet player right? No denying the kid is as quick or quicker than anyone, but that's just not enough.

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: 41'st pick

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        Unlike Bird, Zeke is a good/great evaluator of talent.
        Zeke drafted Fred Jones over Tayshaun Prince

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: 41'st pick

          Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
          Why do you knock drafting Euro_players in the second round? It is better than taken a chance on a Curtis Sumpter and have him never playing for your organization.

          Maybe Lorbek and Stanko, and that's reason enough! But the reality is this year there is some good talent in the 2nd round, so why draft a Euro who can't help but possibly draft a steal out of the 2nd round that could? If Bird wanted to draft a Euro last year with his traded for 2nd round 39th pick from Miami, why didn't he draft Mark Gasol? Maybe he just doesn't know talent! Gasol is one of the best young players in Europe. If he had, you wouldn't hear a word about it from me. I could even be egarly waiting for Gasol to don a Pacers' uni. When do you think Lorbek and Stanko will be coming over to put on a Pacers uni? My guess is not this decade if ever.

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: 41'st pick

            Guys keep thinking this is a magical draft that has that one player that turns it on. Odds are they may not make the roster.

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: 41'st pick

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              Speaking as an Iowa State student, we don't want Taylor. Like... imagine if Iverson called his number even more often, had less dribbling skills, and couldn't shoot very well.

              Yea... pretty sweet player right? No denying the kid is as quick or quicker than anyone, but that's just not enough.

              We definitely don't want to build our future around a player like this, but we're not looking for a franchise player in the 2nd round. I think a selfish but prolific scorer coming off the bench (like Eddie House) would be a great 2nd round pickup. I doubt the Pacers look twice at him though, if he has "character" issues.

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: 41'st pick

                Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                Here is my prediction:

                We trade the #11 pick to portland for the #13 and #33 picks.

                Portland moves ahead of division rival sacramento to steal a pg away from them at the #12 pick. portland is smart to do this trade because they have three second rounders and if westbrook or augustin get taken before 11, the other will still be there. at 13 they wont get either of them for sure. this will allow the pacers to stay ahead of phoenix at 15 who is supposedly in love with brandon rush. we take him at 13 to solidify our back court defense and at the same time get a guy with a sweet stroke. then at 33 and 41 we can get our big man and pg, depending on who is available. there are going to be a ton of good pg's taken in the second round... such as george hill, ty lawson (possibly), mario chalmers, lester hudson, demarcus nelson, sean singletary, or jamont gordon. i think several of these guys could be terrific nba points. i really like singletary and gordon. then we would be able to pick up a guy like dorsey, hendrix, hardin, jefferson, mays, gransberry or jawai in the second, again depending on who is available at those spots.

                also look for another variation:

                dunleavy and #11

                for

                #13, #36, jack, frye, and webster


                ps - if we draft an international player whose name is not batum, i will throw up. i think batum could be exceptional if he maintains his confidence.
                Sounds great but what happens when Phoenix trades ther 15 and whatever for Sactown's 12 to get Rush? We're stuck with a big fat ****burger to eat.

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: 41'st pick

                  Originally posted by Graham Mernatsi View Post
                  41'st?

                  No doubt. I want to rip my eyes out every time I see this thread title.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: 41'st pick

                    Who will we draft in the 2nd round with the 41st pick?

                    Easy to answer....some random 17 year old PG that is playing in Europe that will never step foot in a real NBA court that just helped some Euroteam win some insignificant Regional Championship.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 05-30-2008, 09:01 PM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: 41'st pick

                      Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                      Mike Taylor is the type of story you find on occasion in the D-League. A 21 year old former Junior College standout, Taylor spent his lone year in college playing for Iowa State, where he had a terrific season, averaging 16 points and 4.5 assists on his way to All-Big 10 honors. From there things seemed to go downhill for him, as he was kicked of the team after being arrested on more than one occasion. He first tried enrolling at a Division II school, but when that didn’t work out, went to go play in the D-League instead, and actually had himself a terrific performance at the D-League showcase.
                      i was intrigued by dx's writeup too until i saw that. this is simply not the right time to take a chance on someone with possible character issues. maybe down the road, we can once again take chances on a talented individual working past his baggage, but this year is definitely not the time.

                      in hindsight, marc gasol (#48) looks like a better pick than stanko (#39), but they are actually quite similar. both big (7'1''), slow footed, unathletic, but skilled centers. marc may be the better passer but stanko is the better rebounder. the big difference is that marc just had an absolutely break out season in the spanish acb. stanko though is about 1.5 years younger, so there is still hope for him.

                      however, neither are in the nba yet and we don't know if either can make the adjustment, so it seems a bit premature to celebrate the gasol pick while criticizing stanko.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: 41'st pick

                        From what I'm reading at draftexpress and considering the possibility of the Pacers trading to get another late 1st rounder or moving up in the 2nd, I would love to see the Pacers get Speights, but if it came down to Hickson, Hendrix or DJ White, I have them rated as: DJ White, Hendrix, and Hickson. However, White and Hendrix are both closer to full potential at 21 yrs old (both) and Hickson is only 19. Still, I would go with DJ out of the 3. Better all around game and able to perform on both ends of the court. Looked dominant in a few Big Ten games that I saw.

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: 41'st pick

                          DJ White probably wont be around at 41, I think he'll be gone around the 30s. Hes a huge defensive presence. If we could get Westbrook at #11 and White at #41, we'd be looking pretty good...heres his clip on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjC88...eature=related I would love this guy around, reminds me of a younger Eric Dampier
                          Last edited by MillerTime; 06-03-2008, 11:17 AM.
                          "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: 41'st pick

                            Walker looks NBA-ready to me. I prefer the all-around game of Rush, but Walker has a Jackson-like game post-injury (somewhat like Jack and his own foot problems that have him playing below the rim mostly).

                            Walker doesn't get to round 2 in my view.


                            Now Dorsey somehow might still fall there and if that is the big you put with a #11 guard I'd be pretty happy. I think he's got the strength and fire to make the team and have some impact, more than Ike in fact since he appears set to be a defense/rebound specialist.

                            Kyle Weaver seems to be dropping in a lot of people's eyes since he refused the invite to the pre-draft camp.
                            DJ White also skipped it. This is standard draft speak for "I've gotten a promise from a team". Both White and Weaver have been tied to the Piston's, White especially. If that rumor is to be believed then White wont get out of round 1, and given the Piston's defensive view's and knack for getting semi-low flying quality player's youd see Weaver as another perfect fit, as in trade into the early 2'nd to get him too. Could Detroit be pulling a quality double dip in the late 1'rst early 2'nd? *









                            *Please tell me I just offended Graham at least a tiny bit
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-03-2008, 11:34 AM.

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: 41'st pick

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              Maybe Lorbek and Stanko, and that's reason enough! But the reality is this year there is some good talent in the 2nd round, so why draft a Euro who can't help but possibly draft a steal out of the 2nd round that could? If Bird wanted to draft a Euro last year with his traded for 2nd round 39th pick from Miami, why didn't he draft Mark Gasol? Maybe he just doesn't know talent! Gasol is one of the best young players in Europe. If he had, you wouldn't hear a word about it from me. I could even be egarly waiting for Gasol to don a Pacers' uni. When do you think Lorbek and Stanko will be coming over to put on a Pacers uni? My guess is not this decade if ever.
                              I do not mind drafting either one. Keep in mind the Andrew Betts deal. We can trade the rights to one of these players as a filler in a larger deal. That is better than taking a James White and cutting ties with him. If Stanko ever wears a Pacers Jersey it will sell well just from the members on PD!

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: 41'st pick

                                DJ just a taller version of Maxiell?

                                Would someone give up a late 1st rounder for Maxiell when they could get White? Not sure who Detroit would have to give up to get a late first rounder. Plus, they got Amir Johnson developing, right? This is a deep draft and think it'll be better than next years... Someone might be getting Stuckey.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X