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

    For the ESPN Insider guys, Ford has a draft buzz chat going on right now, is there any good info in it?

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      For the ESPN Insider guys, Ford has a draft buzz chat going on right now, is there any good info in it?
      It's not a chat. Every 45-60 minutes one of the ESPN.com writers (Ford, Katz, Broussard, Stein, etc.) posts some rumor nuggets that they have heard.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Here's the last few, in case anyone's interested:

        POSTED: June 24 -- 5:53 p.m. ET


        Chris Broussard: I'm told that Toronto really likes Jonny Flynn and that the Raptors will strongly consider taking him if he's there at No. 9. According to sources, there is some sentiment within the Raptors organization that they need more of a risk-taker than Jose Calderon at PG, especially if they re-sign Shawn Marion. Flynn, projected to go anywhere from No. 4 to No. 11, would love to go there.

        • Brandon Jennings, who may drop out of the lottery, had a tremendous workout with New Jersey on Tuesday. Coach Lawrence Frank felt he ran the pick-and-roll better than any player the Nets worked out.

        The Nets believe that in three to four years, Jennings could be either the first- or second-best player in the entire draft class. But they believe he's two to three years away from being an everyday starter, so they won't pick him.

        Golden State likes Jennings at No. 7, but coach Don Nelson told Jennings he'd be a backup to Monta Ellis. Nelson's going to move Stephen Jackson to 2-guard. Jennings is hoping to go somewhere and play right away. Milwaukee's a strong possibility at No. 10. If he falls, Phoenix could nab him at No. 14 or Philadelphia at No. 15.


        • At No. 11, the Nets have four players on their board: Flynn, Terrence Williams, Gerald Henderson and Tyler Hansbrough. Hansbrough is the fourth choice. They think he'll be a solid pro for 10 years, though probably just a spot starter. They love Williams' versatility and upside.

        • I'm told OKC will take Hasheem Thabeet at No. 3 if he's there, though there are concerns that he'll struggle on a team for which he's the No. 1 post option. I'm also told that if Thabeet's not there, the Thunder will take James Harden. GM Sam Presti loves Ricky Rubio, but he knows Russell Westbrook will be angered to the point of wanting out if OKC drafts another PG.

        POSTED: June 24 -- 5:23 p.m. ET


        Chad Ford: Good news, Knicks fans. Timberwolves GM David Kahn may allow the Knicks to have their guy after all.

        As we've reported, the Wolves are willing to talk about moving the No. 5 and No. 18 picks for either the No. 2 or No. 3 pick in the draft.

        But if they can't get that done, they have a number of other options. We've mentioned Ricky Rubio, James Harden, Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry as possibilities. Add Jonny Flynn to that list as well. Sources say the Wolves are strongly considering Flynn with one of their two lottery picks ... if Rubio is off the board.

        If they take Flynn, chances are they'll pass on Curry, giving the Knicks a shot at drafting their target.

        • With a proposed Hawks-Warriors deal inching toward completion, it's time to take a second to analyze how this affects the draft.

        The Warriors have the seventh pick in the draft and have been strongly considering both Curry and Jordan Hill. This deal gives them a young point guard in Acie Law, which makes one think the Warriors will go big at No. 7. If Hill is off the board, they also like Wake Forest's James Johnson.

        The Hawks have the 19th pick and we've pegged them with a point guard as well. With Mike Bibby hitting free agency, we thought it was a no-brainer that they'd go with a point. Now that Crawford is in the mix, it looks like the Hawks could turn their attention to the frontcourt. Two players that they've been looking at are Tyler Hansbrough and B.J. Mullens.


        • As we just reported, the Portland Trail Blazers agreed to trade the 24th, 56th and worst of their second-round picks in 2010 to the Dallas Mavericks on Wednesday for the 22nd pick in the draft. The trade has been agreed to in principle and should be finalized in the league office later Wednesday.

        Why would the Blazers move up two spots in the draft? The word around the league was the Kings had zeroed in on Omri Casspi with the 23rd pick. Casspi could be a good pick for the Blazers to either keep overseas or bring over this year to provide more toughness in the frontcourt.

        Other potential targets for the Blazers could be Florida's Nick Calathes, Pittsburgh's DeJuan Blair, Georgetown's DaJuan Summers and VCU's Eric Maynor.

        For the Mavericks, they pick up a couple of extra picks to move two spots in the draft.

        • A number of reports have surfaced about a potential Bobcats-Sixers trade that would send Samuel Dalembert and the No. 17 pick to Charlotte for Nazr Mohammed, Vladimir Radmanovic and the No. 12 pick.

        While I was able to confirm that the Bobcats indeed made the pitch, the Sixers just as quickly shot it down.

        POSTED: June 24 -- 5:08 p.m. ET


        Curry
        Andy Katz: Brandon Jennings said he's not going to the New York Knicks at No. 8. Does he know that for sure? No. But he is confident that the Knicks will get Davidson's Stephen Curry.

        "That's who they want,'' Jennings said. "They'll make it happen."

        • Curry said he'd be comfortable going to Sacramento at No. 4, where he worked out Sunday, because he sees the Kings as a team ready to turn things around.

        Curry's affection for the Knicks, and the reciprocal feelings, are real.

        "They told me that if I was on the board that I would be their No. 1 guy,'' Curry said. "That doesn't mean it's guaranteed. I went to other workouts and made it tougher on them."

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Watching the Wake-Duke game on ESPNU right now. It's only 5 minutes in, but Teague looks pretty good to me. He looks very comfortable running the point and getting others involved. On the other hand, I haven't been impressed with Henderson yet.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
            Watching the Wake-Duke game on ESPNU right now. It's only 5 minutes in, but Teague looks pretty good to me. He looks very comfortable running the point and getting others involved. On the other hand, I haven't been impressed with Henderson yet.
            Keep us posted. You watching the VCU game too? I randomly get that channel...today (of course) I don't. Not happy.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
              Watching the Wake-Duke game on ESPNU right now. It's only 5 minutes in, but Teague looks pretty good to me. He looks very comfortable running the point and getting others involved. On the other hand, I haven't been impressed with Henderson yet.
              JJ is looking good
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                What's different in Ford's mock 6.2?

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                  Keep us posted. You watching the VCU game too? I randomly get that channel...today (of course) I don't. Not happy.
                  I plan on it. I haven't seen as much of Maynor as I would like so I'm gonna try to catch the game after this one is over.

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  JJ is looking good
                  Yes, he is. He's gotten several rebounds as well as hitting some difficult shots. He's been all over the place so far.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                    What's different in Ford's mock 6.2?
                    you can see all the mock drafts here

                    http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...sus/index.html

                    Chad Ford has the Pacers taking Blair......................
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      That dunk by Aminu was just nasty. Wow. He's gonna be a good player for Wake next year.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Wow, the latest Draft Express mock has the Kings passing on Ricky Rubio for Jonny Flynn. This is a bit shocking as everything I've read had had Sacramento all over Rubio, trying anything possible to make sure he ends up there including giving up #4 and a good, young big man in Jason Thompson.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          I think Kings will go with Tyreke Evans. Thabeet/Rubio goes 2/3. Not sure about the order though. And then Kings get Evans and Harden slips to 5. To me, that's the most logical scenario at this point.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Teague and Johnson both look really good for Wake so far in this game. JJ has been all over the place with several blocks, a couple rebounds, and made shots from all over. While Teague has had a couple plays where he got a little out of control, he has been pretty well composed with the ball. At least in this game, he looked to get everyone else involved first and resorted to scoring second. He just hit a off balance three falling away from the basket at the end of the half.

                            Teague definitely has the quickness and athleticism for the next level, just in case there are those doubting that aspect of his game. I don't think his low release will be much of an issue either. Duke was a great defensive team last year but Teague hasn't had much of a problem getting seperation to get his shot off.

                            Johnson looks like a man amongst boys out there. He's just so much more physical than anyone else. By just looking at him, you would think he was a clear-cut PF with his body type, but he moves extremely well and has even been guarding Henderson quite a bit in this game. He's very versatile.

                            Edit- For the record, I would take Teague & Johnson before Lawson & Hansbrough every day of the week. IMO, they have a lot more potential at the next level.

                            Oh, and Henderson can get up. No doubt about it. He had a slow start but he's looked tough in this game. I think he has 12 now with 17 min to go in the 2nd. He still needs to work on his shot and his ball-handling, but he has everything else.
                            Last edited by Coop; 06-24-2009, 07:51 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
                              Teague and Johnson both look really good for Wake so far in this game. JJ has been all over the place with several blocks, a couple rebounds, and made shots from all over. While Teague has had a couple plays where he got a little out of control, he has been pretty well composed with the ball. At least in this game, he looked to get everyone else involved first and resorted to scoring second. He just hit a off balance three falling away from the basket at the end of the half.

                              Teague definitely has the quickness and athleticism for the next level, just in case there are those doubting that aspect of his game. I don't think his low release will be much of an issue either. Duke was a great defensive team last year but Teague hasn't had much of a problem getting seperation to get his shot off.

                              Johnson looks like a man amongst boys out there. He's just so much more physical than anyone else. By just looking at him, you would think he was a clear-cut PF with his body type, but he moves extremely well and has even been guarding Henderson quite a bit in this game. He's very versatile.
                              I know, those to guys are really good, Jhonson could be a nice pick
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                I haven't seen this posted.
                                ESPN chat with draft prospects.

                                http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat...t-at-nba-draft

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X