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

    I need to watch Harden. The highlights showed him stretching the floor and making great passes. How is the defense?

    Ty took over against Duke. If he continues to show that I would favor him after Teague. No matter what we will get an average starter at best in this draft.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
      I need to watch Harden. The highlights showed him stretching the floor and making great passes. How is the defense?

      Ty took over against Duke. If he continues to show that I would favor him after Teague. No matter what we will get an average starter at best in this draft.
      I think that Larry Bird loved Ty Lawson or at least it seemed so. I think he would have taken him at 17 for sure, maybe even at 11, if he wouldn't have had trouble.

      NBA Draft.net has Ty going 21 right now. I could see Larry either moving down or trying again to get an extra pick for him.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by Speed View Post
        I think that Larry Bird loved Ty Lawson or at least it seemed so. I think he would have taken him at 17 for sure, maybe even at 11, if he wouldn't have had trouble.

        NBA Draft.net has Ty going 21 right now. I could see Larry either moving down or trying again to get an extra pick for him.
        If Lawson has his life together he would be a good pick. He is one powerful point and has a
        good A/T ratio and a good shooting percentage. If the Pacers can get a good PF and
        a point like Lawson they will have had a good draft.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          I think that Larry Bird loved Ty Lawson or at least it seemed so. I think he would have taken him at 17 for sure, maybe even at 11, if he wouldn't have had trouble.

          NBA Draft.net has Ty going 21 right now. I could see Larry either moving down or trying again to get an extra pick for him.
          Word!
          I was thinking the same thing, esp after I saw him score 21 in the 2nd half, then say Chalmbers make some big plays for Mia vs Chi. I'm sure Mario's success is kinda bothersome to LB, esp. if you take his woird that he tried to trade back into the draft to get him.
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Some of you guys think it automatic we take a PF but I disagree. I think we take the best player available. If there is a strong perimeter defender that happens to play the wing then draft him if he is the best available. Our team has several holes to fill.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
              Some of you guys think it automatic we take a PF but I disagree. I think we take the best player available. If there is a strong perimeter defender that happens to play the wing then draft him if he is the best available. Our team has several holes to fill.
              Who has said otherwise? I think everyone is firmly in the best available camp.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Some quotes from last year by me

                Brandon Rush, April 2008
                Hmm, sounds familiar.

                Chalmers, April 08

                Kofi on Chalmers just before this post

                Excellent call.

                My deal with Westbrook as not to take him as a PG, but make him the SG and trade Dun - April 15th

                and this stomach turner...same post

                and why trade Dun if you draft Westbrook?


                A few days before those posts...

                And in March

                Yeah, I sure didn't like him.


                Beats the heck out of someone telling me Love would never make it in the NBA.


                I was by far hardest on Hibbert of any of the picks, even though I liked him as a person and wished for him to have success (prior to the Pacers drafting him). And I wasn't the only one crushing him in the recruiting thread. I did give him the out as being smart and perhaps working his way back in ala Brad Miller. I do think that's been part of what's helped Roy, being smart and having a good attitude toward improving.
                I never said you didn't like him. I'm taking exception with the fact that you think he is still a 2 guard. The guy can and will be an excellent point guard in this league. He already has two 12 assist games as a rookie.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                  Some of you guys think it automatic we take a PF but I disagree. I think we take the best player available. If there is a strong perimeter defender that happens to play the wing then draft him if he is the best available. Our team has several holes to fill.
                  croz24 would agree with this and would contend that outside or harden and griffin, demar derozan (if he comes out) and patrick patterson are really the pacers only chances at potentially great players in this weak draft.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Patrick Patterson? Seriously.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      Patrick Patterson? Seriously.
                      I love Patterson for what the Pacers need, but right now he looks like he could be had in the 2nd round, surprisingly to me.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Not sold on Teague yet, but I'd like to watch him some more. I'm crossing my fingers that we get a pick high enough to sneak Jennings back out of Europe.


                        Two guys I'm really down on now - Earl Clark and Blair. Now Blair was never set to be top 10 so this probably isn't fair, but after having some interest in him as a big, strong PF with wingspan to cover his shortness, I've lost it after watching him some more.

                        To me Blair is just too disinterested half the time. One game is one thing, but I've seen it over several games. He's looking more like Tractor Traylor now, using size to get by rather than being a truly great player. The one part of his game I still like is his screens and picks. Just not sure if that's enough now.
                        After reading your comments about Blair, I think to myself that the best case scenario is that Blair is similiar to Maxiell/Milsap....which I would love.....then realize that when I read his profile and see that he's a 6'6" PF with a low-post game with a huge 7'2" wingspan....I see the 2nd coming of Diogu.

                        How's Blair's Basketball IQ?

                        Whose game does he compare to?

                        Also, based off of what you see now in the Draft.....what do you think we should do?

                        Trade down or even out of this draft? I wouldn't be adverse to swapping picks out of the 2009-2010 draft then try to get back into this draft by trying to acquire a late 20s pick and/or 2nd round pick.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 02-13-2009, 04:50 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                          Some of you guys think it automatic we take a PF but I disagree. I think we take the best player available. If there is a strong perimeter defender that happens to play the wing then draft him if he is the best available. Our team has several holes to fill.
                          Which option is the best to choose when filling these needs that we have?

                          A ) Draft then develop a Wing Perimeter Defender and then sign/acquire the PF that we are looking for

                          or

                          B ) Draft then develop a PF and then try to sign/acquire the Wing Perimeter Defender that we are looking for

                          The answer kind of depends on which you think is easier to do. I think that it comes down to whether you think that there is a greater chance that a Wing Perimeter Defender will pan out over choosing a PF that will pan out.

                          IMHO, there are more readily available Wing Perimeter Defenders out there that we can sign/acquire in the FA Market then there are decent Big Men that we can sign/acquire.

                          Does anyone know which type of Players that are drafted ( GF as opposed to a PF...but not a Center ) will likely pan out and provide a quicker return on dividends in the short run?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            has anybody been keeping an eye on Danny Green of UNC? draftexpress has him going in the middle of the 2nd round. could be a steal

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by mrknowname View Post
                              has anybody been keeping an eye on Danny Green of UNC? draftexpress has him going in the middle of the 2nd round. could be a steal
                              There's only room for one Danny on the team.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                I know we are starting to jock up various players, though looking at last year's thread every single possible pick had someone telling us they were the 2nd coming. But I still think this draft is really thin and could be a real dud for the Pacers. Thank god they got 2 picks in last years draft which was the time to do it.

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                Who has said otherwise? I think everyone is firmly in the best available camp.
                                I agree. I think we were thinking PF was the target early on, but where they are slotting and the overall team situation mean that every spot but SF is one of interest, and if the SF was good enough you'd have to take him too.

                                I only saw Harden early on and forgot to Tivo that game last night. I really wanted to see him again in action. I wasn't impressed back in December, but I would never put stock in a one time viewing of a player.



                                I'm still in the camp of not being all that impressed with Lawson. He still seems like a college PG rather that a guy with pro-handles. He has straight ahead speed but as much as I've seen he doesn't have the ball on a string or anything.



                                Blair - physical stats might say Ike, but he's really nothing like him. He's not a scorer like Ike and I wouldn't expect that from him. He sets monster picks with his size and sticks with them. He gets physical on the boards and can intimidate with his size. His height doesn't bother me at all.

                                But I hate his bball IQ, or interest level. He lets plays go, he doesn't try to get himself in every play like guys like Westbrook, Mayo, Love, C Lee or Weaver do. I mean on defense Thabeet wants to swat every shot out of the gym. Blair doesn't mind sitting some plays out.



                                Patterson - no way, not yet, not ready at all, huge gamble.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X