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

Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

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

  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
    It's in the Draft Recruit thread on pg. 57 I believe.
    the one they got there is old.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Wow.

      Pass.

      Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass!

      The Memphis well is poisoned and the Pacers would be wise to look elsewhere.
      The Pacers cannot take the risk.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Just watched some of Bird's postseason wrap up comments. He talked about not being sure there were any bigs that would be worth taking basically, but also said there were 4 or 5 PGs he thought could play at our level.

        JOB mentioned getting a younger Jeff Foster that can score in the post, or getting a bigger, more athletic PG.
        Last edited by ESutt7; 06-17-2009, 07:53 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
          Just watched some of Bird's postseason wrap up comments. He talked about not being sure there were any bigs that would be worth taking basically, but also said there were 4 or 5 PGs he thought could play at our level.

          JOB mentioned getting a younger Jeff Foster that can score in the post, or getting a bigger, more athletic PG.
          Possible translation: "We'll be delighted if we can fashion a trade, turn our pick into two picks a bit further down, and pick up a veteran defender and both Tyler Hansbrough and Eric Maynor."

          If Jennings doesn't drop and the best guess by TPTB is that neither Blair nor JJ nor Clark (nor Lawson) are destined to become stars, we'd be fine with that outcome, wouldn't we?


          "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

          - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            I almost don't care who the Pacers take. There really is no clear cut guy that I think would be good for this team.

            I would love to see a trade happen. If the Pacers can move down a few spots and get someone useful (like Jarrett Jack last year) I would consider this draft a success regardless of how whoever the Pacers draft turns out.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              I think we will end up drafting both Ty Lawson and Tyler Hansborough. I am not sure if we trade down to get both or take one with the 13th pick and then pick up another pick. I just think that both fit what we are trying to do here. Everyone seems to think that players from 11-25ish are rated about the same but I think these two would be great for the Pacers.

              I like taking a point guard in this draft because there is NO guarantee that we keep Jack. Too many people on this board just assume we do keep Jack but I am sure many people thought we were just going to resign Brad Miller as well. I just don't want to assume that we are going to keep a player when we very well could not have the money to give him. Can you imagine if we don't resign Jack? Our point guard situation would be awful. We would have TJ, Maybe Travis, and no one else.... Where do we go from there? People that think the point guard position is in good shape are assuming that resigning Jack is a given. I think they wouldn't be more wrong. Lets say that we do resign Jack... I say draft a point guard anyway because Ford could leave in two years and even if we end up getting Jennings we would have two years to bring him along and at that time he will only be 21. I just don't want to be stuck without a solid backup PG and I dislike how we assume we will be able to resign Jack.

              I also like Hansborough as a PF prospect. I think he could step in and give us some good minutes and if we did end up Lawson and Hansborough they would at least know each other and have some on court chemistry. We could play them both together in the second unit and they would work well together. Well this is just some thoughts I have a week before the draft but am I not right in thinking that we DO need a PG because I have a bad feeling we won't be able to resign Jack?

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Thought you all might enjoy this:

                http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ge=09DraftBuzz

                POSTED: June 17 -- 8:32 p.m. ET

                Chad Ford: One of the challenges that teams in the late lottery to mid first round are facing is trying to get a good handle on who will be there starting from pick No. 11.

                I think we have a good idea of who, roughly, the top 10 picks will be (or as I laid it out in my article today, the top 3 tiers). In some order they go:

                Blake Griffin (obviously No. 1)
                Ricky Rubio (2 to 6)
                Hasheem Thabeet (2 to 6)
                James Harden (2 to 5)
                Jordan Hill (5 to 10)
                Stephen Curry (3 to 8)
                Tyreke Evans (4 to 9)
                Jrue Holiday (4 to 10)
                Jonny Flynn (4 to 10)
                DeMar DeRozan (3 to 9)

                But, even that list isn't set in stone. After publishing the Tiers story this morning, I got some interesting feedback from several NBA scouts and executives. A couple of players out of Tier 4 threaten to crash the top-10 party. Who are they?

                North Carolina's Ty Lawson has taken some abuse during the draft workout process, but it sounds as though teams are starting to come around. Lawson was, without question, the most productive point guard in the draft. Teams are skeptical because of his size and his style of play. But he's been great in several recent workouts according to sources and apparently is in the mix with the Knicks at No. 8 if guys like Curry and Hill are off the board. Lawson also is still on the board at No. 10 to Milwaukee and the Pacers at No. 13 and the Sixers at No. 17 are also giving him a serious look. If Lawson ends up crashing the top 10, that would probably push either Holiday or Flynn out.

                Louisville's Terrence Williams is another player who is a potential lottery crasher. The Warriors have been high on Williams all year and will seriously consider him at No. 7. And Williams also seems to have seriously moved into the mix with the Nets at No. 11 and the Bobcats at No. 12. In fact, sources say that Williams has been invited back to Charlotte for a second time. One league source says that he's leapfrogged Duke's Gerald Henderson on Larry Brown's board.

                The final guy to watch is Henderson, who is getting a serious look in New York, Toronto and Charlotte. In each case I think there are players ahead of him on each team's draft boards, but under certain scenarios I think he could go 8 to 12. However, if DeMar DeRozan is on the board at No. 9, I think he's going ahead of Henderson in Toronto. And, if the source on Williams is to be believed, it's possible that Henderson could slide out of the lottery.
                I have a sneaking feeling that a guard or two that has been hyped so far in the offseason will drop to us, and we're going to ultimately pick Lawson, Blair, or Johnson and a lot of people are going to be ticked off.

                It reminds me of how I felt with Rush when I found out that the swap had happened. But I have to admit, a year away from the move, I buy it and think it was the right thing to do.

                Think about the implications of that one trade:

                1) Good shot of having our future starting 2.
                2) Good shot of having a strong, committed PG in Jack.
                3) We have a backup energy PF that is a good locker room presence and a fan favorite.
                4) We actually derived some sort of value from Diogu.

                I've long forgotten about the feeling I had that night, and so I'm preparing myself to ignore it again.

                Most people I think miss the one big obvious observation: there's a reason why guys slip, and *most* of the time, it's a valid reason... one man's trash isn't necessarily another man's treasure.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Tyrese Rice worked out for the Pacers today, the video is up on the Pacers website if you want to view it. He seems to be pretty level headed and confident. If the Pacers don't select a pg in the first round I think either Rice or Dominic James from Marquette would be solid second round picks. Yes they are short but they both play with a lot of confidence, especially James.

                  Dominic James #1 G

                  2008-09 STATS
                  PPGAPG3P%RPGBPGSPG
                  115.2843.40.32.1



                  Tyrese Rice #4 G

                  2008-09 STATS
                  PPGAPG3P%RPGBPGSPG
                  16.95.3.3473.80.21.4

                  "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by PacerFreak31 View Post
                    I think we will end up drafting both Ty Lawson and Tyler Hansborough. I am not sure if we trade down to get both or take one with the 13th pick and then pick up another pick. I just think that both fit what we are trying to do here. Everyone seems to think that players from 11-25ish are rated about the same but I think these two would be great for the Pacers.
                    I could see that. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, I think they can both contribute long term and would fit as nice pieces here with good character etc.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      NBA Draft Combine is on NBA TV right now for the westcoasters (possibly east too?).

                      It's interesting to see these guys run empty plays.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        I'm not surprised at all that the Warriors would be interested in TWill.

                        Also.....despite his size.....I think the best PG that will likely be available at the 13th spot is Lawson. Other things that wouldn't surprise me, one of the top PG prospects drops out of the top 10........my guess? Jennings....I can see him being this year's Bayless.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Wow. Could Henderson be there at 13?

                          Regardless, interesting to see TWill climbing the boards. I thought I might lose my bet for a while there.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            I was reading my ESPN Magazine and I came across an interesting article in the June 29th 2009 issue where ESPN asked NBA Players from each Team who they would draft. The article doesn't really explain how they came up with which available players to pick....but I assume that it's via a Mock Draft format where each NBA Player is told which Players are left to choose from.

                            I'll Tell You Who I'd Take
                            From ESPN Magazine
                            June 29th 2009 issue
                            Page 72 to 74

                            ADMINS - I could not find the specific writer of the article. It was mainly quotes from Players when asked who they'd pick. If you need to remove or edit this post, please do so.
                            1 ) Clippers - Blake Griffin ( as chosen by Ricky Davis )
                            2 ) Grizzlies - Hasheem Thabeet ( as chosen by Rudy Gay )
                            3 ) Thunder - James Harden ( as chosen by Russell Westbrook )
                            4 ) Kings - Ricky Rubio ( as chosen by Spencer Hawes )
                            5 ) Wizards - DeMar DeRozan ( as chosen by Antawn Jamison )
                            6 ) TWolves - Brandon Jennings ( as chosen by Kevin Love )
                            7 ) Warriors - Ty Lawson ( as chosen by Ronny Turiaf )
                            8 ) Knicks - Stephen Curry ( as chosen by QRich )
                            9 ) Raptors - Tyreke Evans ( as chosen by Anthony Parker )
                            10) Bucks - Jonny Flynn ( as chosen by Luc Richard Mbah Moute )
                            11) Nets - Terrence Williams ( as chosen by Josh Boone )
                            12) Bobcats - Chase Budinger ( as chosen by Raymond Felton )
                            13) Pacers - Jordan Hill ( as chosen by Danny Granger )
                            14) Suns - Gerald Henderson ( as chosen by Grant Hill )
                            15) Pistons - Omri Casspi ( as chosen by will Bynum )
                            16) Bulls - DeJuan Blair ( as chosen by Lindsey Hunter )
                            17) Sixers - Eric Maynor ( as chosen by Donyell Marshall )
                            18) TWolves - Austin Daye ( as chosen by Kevin Love )
                            19) Hawks - Gani Lawal ( as chosen by Mario West )
                            20) Jazz - Jrue Holiday ( as chosen by Kyle Lorver )
                            21) Hornets - Earl Clark ( as chosen by Tyson Chandler )
                            22) Mavs - James Johnson ( as chosen by Josh Howard )
                            23) Kings - Jon Brockman ( as chosen by Spencer Hawes )
                            24) Blazers - Tyler Hansborough ( as chosen by Joel Pryzbilla )
                            25) Thunder - BJ Mullens ( as chosen by Russell Westbrook )
                            26) Bulls - Wayne Ellington ( as chosen by Lindsey Hunter )
                            27) Grizzlies - DaJuan Summers ( as chosen by Rudy Gay )
                            28) TWolves - Josh Heytvelt ( as chosen by Kevin Love )
                            29) Lakers - Sam Young ( as chosen by Jordan Farmar )
                            30) Cavs - Derrick Brown ( as chosen by Daniel Gibson )


                            In each pick, the Player explains why they'd pick the player.

                            Some of the picks makes sense and on-par with what most experts think....but some seem a little too high ( Lawson at 7, Budinger at 12 and Casspi at 15 ) whereas there are some that appear to be picked too late ( Holiday at 20, Clark at uuu21 and Johnson at 22 ).

                            For Granger, he thinks that Jordan Hill is a good blend of size and athleticsm and can help immediately. He may have some parts of his game that needs to be worked on, but he thinks that it will come to him in time.

                            Interesting thoughts on what Granger thinks about our Frontcourt needs given that some a top PG prospect like Holiday still on the board.
                            Last edited by CableKC; 06-18-2009, 01:22 AM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              I've read the lowest Hill will go is 7. So, him falling to 13 is highly unlikely. If he did, I could definitely see us taking him because he has legit size and can score in the post. He's more athletic than Hibbert. That being said, I don't think he falls to 13, so it's a moot point. I'm not sure if we think enough of the PFs there to draft one.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                                The phrase you're looking for is "That's not incorrect, it's just incomplete."

                                EDIT: And by the way, I'm loving the idea that Flynn might go top 8. Should push somebody good to us.
                                do you not view flynn as being "good"?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X