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 Justin Tyme View Post
    If you are just trying to fillout a roster, you can do it with NBADL or undrafted players.
    True, but those are bound to be atleast a little less talented then the players we would be able to draft with those two picks mentioned and if we don't like the player #31 we can always still drop him.

    Again not liking it, but nonetheless I have seen stranger things happen...
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post
      Even if you don't sign the 2nd round pick it's still not saving that much money that's the problem.

      It's still money you didn't spend that stays in the Simons' pocket. Just remember it's their money, and this franchise is losing "their" money. "A penny/dollar saved is a penny/dollar earned."

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Trading 13 for those 2 picks? I like trading down, but that seems to be too far. And it DOES NOT SAVE YOU MONEY because you have 2 contracts instead of 1...unless you just dump 31. And if you flat out trade down 13 to 23 to save money on the rookie scale then you need to be fired.

        The #31 contract isn't going to be any cheaper than the league min if you need to fill out the roster. There is virtually no savings in that move. That's someone trying to leverage the Pacers to get more in a trade. Or maybe it's the Pacers trying to get Chicago to come off their 2 picks.
        A couple of things:

        First, if the Pacers were really to make this deal (or one like it) merely to save money, there is absolutely no way that it's being driven by Bird and Morway. If this is purely cost savings, then it's coming from the Simons...and we (in Indianapolis) should be very, very concerned.

        Second, it would, in fact, save money. The salaries for the #23 & #31 would be roughly equal to the scale for the #13...perhaps even a couple hundred k less. The min for a rookie non-first rounder is only $450k, but it jumps quickly to $736 for 1 year players, and up from there. It is literally the cheapest player you can sign, and arguably (or theoretically), the #31 pick should (as a general rule) put you in the position to select the best available cheapest player in the draft.

        Also, as noted, the #31 doesn't have to be guaranteed money. (Though 2nd rounders can, and have been given guaranteed contracts. James White, ladies and gentlemen.) However, that is of less monetary utility, primarily because they're going to have to fill that slot with other money.

        I agree that this is an absolutely horrifying thought, and I hope that it is completely untrue. It would be one thing if there was simply nobody we wanted or needed at #13, but that is clearly not the case. I believe that there are players that Bird and Morway like, and that's why I don't believe they would be the ones driving this decision...if this is the sole move they make.

        However...

        It's important to remember exactly how thin our margins are. Let's say that we can get the 23 & 31 under contract for the same as the #13. That basically saves us a min contract, probably $0.8 to $1.0mm for a vaguely serviceable player.

        That's not much, but it could be the difference between paying the tax or not paying the tax...(and, subsequently, getting the $3-4mm of escrow distributions or not)...it could be the difference between being able to take on additional salary in a currently proposed trade or not...it could be the difference between being able to re-sign Jack and being able to pick up a decent free agent or having to choose between the two options.

        In other words, this horrifying move could make sense if it's the first step in a larger plan.

        However...

        The timing of it is problematic. In the optimistic scenario, this is only something you do when you know exactly what your next step is, and you're about to execute it. Therefore, (if real) it could be a pre-cursor to another, bigger trade...perhaps involving TJ or T-Murda.

        It's too early to be related to Free Agency. Since we don't know the market, or the player, shaving off this little space for some undetermined FA that may or may not be (a) affordable or (b) interested is foolish...(unless that player is Daniels, which give me another set of issues that I don't want to think about.)

        There are a lot of things that a move like this can mean...Most of them are bad, but not all of them...I'm hoping that it's a fluffernutter...(after all, the link is to a chat room, where a poster, like us, is attributing the rumor to WNDE (did anyone hear this?) without any link).

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
          True, but those are bound to be atleast a little less talented then the players we would be able to draft with those two picks mentioned and if we don't like the player #31 we can always still drop him.

          Again not liking it, but nonetheless I have seen stranger things happen...

          I'm not crazy about it either, but the Pacers could still get a good player at #23, and having the having the 1st pick in the 2nd round isn't much different than having the #29 Lakers or #30 Boston pick. There will be some nice players that will be available... Sam Young, Jeff Pendergraph, Nick Calathes, and a couple of Euros.

          What if Holiday fell as possibly reported to #23? At 23 you could possibly draft Brown, Douglas, or Gibson.

          It wouldn't be my favorite thing happen, but it wouldn't necessarily be disasterous either.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            I feel like I'm setting myself up to be very disappointed.
            I've already started preparing myself for the inevitable. We are going to end up with at least one crappy UNC player.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Since Ty is being projected as our guy...

              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ml?eref=sihpT1
              1. Can North Carolina's Ty Lawson be a good half-court point guard? While I was at the USA Basketball trials in Colorado Springs, Colo., last week, I asked one NBA scout, "Other than his height [just over 6 feet in shoes], why is Ty Lawson so rarely mentioned as a lottery pick?" The scout's feeling was that plenty of teams looked at Lawson as too much of a product of a transition system, and a weak defender.
              The weak-defense part is legitimate -- see what Jeff Teague did to him at Wake Forest on Jan. 11 -- but to label him as a point guard who's only good in transition is inaccurate. Lawson is devastating on the break -- 37.91 percent of his offense came in transition, according to Synergy Sports' scouting database, and at 1.21 points per possession (PPP) on the break, he's the most efficient of any first-round point guard in that regard.
              But what happens when we remove Lawson's transition possessions from the equation and look only at half-court situations? Using Synergy's possession-by-possession logs from 2008-09 games, I compared the first-round college point guards' PPP in 1-on-1 situations, shots out of pick-and-rolls, passes out of pick-and-rolls and spot-up shots, and put them in the chart below. (The numbers in parentheses are the percentile these stats would rank in amongst NBA players. Assist-to-turnover ratio is also included as the last category, for reference.)
              Comparing Point Guard Efficiency Ratings in Halfcourt Situations
              Player Team 1-on-1 P&R-shoot P&R-pass Spot-Up A/T
              Ty Lawson UNC 1.00 (87) 1.19 (93) 1.12 (63) 1.20 (89) 3.48
              Eric Maynor VCU 1.01 (88) 0.95 (75) 0.95 (40) 1.02 (68) 2.08
              Jonny Flynn Syracuse 0.89 (74) 0.85 (61) 1.06 (54) 0.91 (52) 1.97
              Nick Calathes Florida 0.65 (36) 0.92 (71) 0.98 (44) 1.17 (86) 1.94
              Darren Collison UCLA 1.02 (88) 1.14 (90) 1.01 (50) 1.00 (66) 1.91
              Jrue Holiday UCLA 0.67 (40) 1.30* (97) 1.33* (91) 0.82 (39) 1.72
              Stephen Curry Davidson 0.95 (81) 0.78 (5) 0.93 (35) 1.19 (88) 1.50
              Tyreke Evans Memphis 0.54 (21) 0.88 (65) 0.97 (42) 0.96 (59) 1.08
              Jeff Teague Wake Forest 1.07 (90) 0.83 (60) 0.94 (36) 0.87 (47) 1.06

              The numbers indicate that Lawson is the total package: His 1.19 PPP off of pick-and-rolls is better than any other point (save UCLA's Jrue Holiday, whom I've asterisked because he had only 19 pick-and-rolls logged all season, compared to Lawson's 96). Lawson's 1.12 PPP on passes out of pick-and-rolls ranks first among this point guard class, too.
              He's also the best spot-up shooter of the group, at 1.20 PPP, even better than Stephen Curry at 1.19 PPP -- and those stats aren't adjusted to reflect the disparity of competition in the ACC and the Southern Conference.
              Lawson was the fourth-most efficient in one-on-one situations, at 1.00 PPP, behind only Teague, UCLA's Darren Collison and VCU's Eric Maynor, and significantly better thanHoliday (0.67) or Tyreke Evans (0.54). No one was a better decision-maker than Lawson, either: His 3.48-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio was more than three times better than Evans' or Teague's. I understand the reasoning in drafting athletes such as Evans or Holiday based on potential, but there's a real possibility that Lawson might end up being the best pure floor general to emerge from this draft.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Count, TMurda?

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  Count, TMurda?
                  Troy Murphy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    I feel like I'm setting myself up to be very disappointed.
                    Not to wish misery on you but if it turns out something like last year, I will take that.
                    I really don't have strong feelings this year on any player available at 13. I just hope that
                    the Pacers can some how get two good players in the first.

                    In the second round I hope they get Siler or Heytvelt.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Ghaah!! I feel a tantrum coming on!

                      By the end of this day, I want to see significant improvement either in talent acquisition or salary structure. That means I won't be satisfied without at least seeing us as part of a trade (or two).

                      I've given up on us picking T-Will or Clark, or trading up greatly for Thabeet or Rubio, or slightly for Hill ... and the only fellas who I'd feel good about (with reservations) at #13 are Holiday and/or Jennings. I like Blair and would be ho-hum okay with Johnson or Maynor or Henderson or Hansbrough (not Lawson, and certainly neither Mullens nor Daye), but only after a modest trade-down. I don't expect great things next season, but I side with all who lust for a stud athlete with a clean record a decent IQ who has the potential to defend like a lawyer with a high mortgage.

                      Indy: Good idea about the Draft-Day consolidation thread. I'll focus my efforts there.

                      (Imitating the voice of George C. Scott):
                      PDers, whatever happens today, I just want you to know it's been a pleasure serving with you. You've fought your guts out (in debate), and given your Pacer community reason to be proud. Now let's get out there and exert our will. Let's win one for Wayman.
                      Last edited by DrFife; 06-25-2009, 09:14 AM.


                      "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

                        Doesn't Bird get any benefit of the doubt after last year????

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                          Doesn't Bird get any benefit of the doubt after last year????
                          Definitely does with me. I trust that who we get is a guy that really impressed in interviews, workouts, and games. I think we get a key contributor this year.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                            If Ford's 7.0 is close & both Clark & Daye are picked at 14 & 15 then Bird should take the Bulls offer, move back to 16 & get 26.

                            Looks like the players they want at 13 would still be there at 16.

                            I think the PG talk is all smoke. Hansbrough is Larry's guy.
                            The problem with that scenario, though, is that The Bulls are reportedly after Henderson, and in Ford's mock Henderson is already gone, so they would have no motivation to trade their #16 and #26 to us for our #13.

                            If TPTB have no intention of drafting Jennings if he falls to #13, then here's hoping that Henderson is the one to fall so that we might be able to package him for #16 and #26 instead...
                            "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                            -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              I am still under the impression that there is not a huge level drop off from those picks. I am not going to get in a huge tiff over a weak draft.

                              Some of you guys are going into this draft with such a high expectation, be prepared for disappointment. I hate the thought of passing on a could-be player, for a more "ready" player. But I am not calling for Bird's head either. If I didn't last year, I won't this year.

                              Folks it is the draft not the finals.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                #23 and #31?

                                At first glance it seems like a horrible idea but there are some legit players in that range that I like.

                                Calathes, even though he won't be around for at least a year, is probably going to be a very solid pro and I don't see him as any worse than Lawson, Maynor, or Flynn when it comes to overall talent. Even Maynor or Hansbrough could be there at 23, I'm convinced both of these are on Bird's list of 4.

                                #31 will most likely net you Jeff Adrien, who I am thrilled with.

                                I am trying to really lower my expectations for this draft, though. I have a feeling in 10 years when people are reading through this draft it is going to read a lot like the 2000 Draft: Bust, Bust, Bust, solid bench player, bust, bust, bust

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X