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

    Yeah, I don't think he's an ace defender, more of a flashy pickpocket type. Really, I hate to say this because of the off-court image it now brings up, but Jennings reminds me of Tinsley.

    He's got hops that Tins didn't and I don't think he's the take-over scorer type that Tins could be, but in that rookie year where Tins was pass-crazy, liked to make flashy passes even at the cost of TOs, and had strong handles I see something similar to what I think Jennings could bring.


    It's just going to be a really dangerous draft I think. Seems like a lot of potholes out there.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      If we can't trade our pick for a better value, and Griffin/Henderson are off the board, I'd take Jennings.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        It's just going to be a really dangerous draft I think. Seems like a lot of potholes out there.
        Yeah, when you look at the draft, I really don't see a lot of guys I can be all that excited about, especially at the positions of need for the Pacers: PG, PF.

        There are actually a number of decent looking PG prospects, but they all have questions marks and look more like late first-rounders than late lottery picks. I'm talking about guys like Calathes, Eric Maynor, and Jonny Flynn.

        As for PF's, we've got no shot at Griffin. I don't like big guys with motor issues like Monroe and Blair. The intriguing ones to me are Hill, Patterson, and Lawal, but I think our pick will be too early to take Patterson or Lawal, and maybe too late to get Hill.

        I like Henderson, but he seems a bit like this years version of Brandon Rush. A solid college veteran 2 guard who does a lot of things well and is going to be billed as "NBA Ready" coming right out of college. They have different games, but similar situations. If we drafted Henderson, we'd really have to move Dunleavy to clear up the logjam at the wing.

        Then there's just a bunch of guys I don't want or that I'm highly unsure of: The Wake Forest kids, Thabeet, Curry, Lawson.

        Evans and Harden are guys we'd have to consider on talent alone if they're around when we pick.

        What scares me a little is that the player who fits Bird's profile from last year the most (Smart kid, years of college experience, successful program) is Stephen Curry. I'm not sold on Curry's PG skills, but if he could do it, it would be in an offense like the one we're running right now. That way he could get the ball up the court, pass it off, and then play off the ball a bit.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
          I like Henderson, but he seems a bit like this years version of Brandon Rush. A solid college veteran 2 guard who does a lot of things well and is going to be billed as "NBA Ready" coming right out of college. They have different games, but similar situations. If we drafted Henderson, we'd really have to move Dunleavy to clear up the logjam at the wing.
          I'm not as concerned with having a Granger/Dunleavy/BRush/Henderson SG/SF rotation with Jack as a backup SG on an "as needed" basis. This is the same issue that we have now with the addition of Marquis and Graham in the lineup. If we were to draft Henderson, then we simply choose not to resign Marquis ( which...unfortunately...we probably wouldn't be doing anyways ) and Graham ( who would pretty much be getting garbage minutes anyway...which could go to Henderson ) since we would have more then enough players to handle the SG/SF rotation. I wouldn't be looking to move Dunleavy in the 2009-2010 season since I doubt that any team would take on his contract and Henderson's a rookie who probably should be getting the same garbage minutes that Graham would be getting.

          I know that the tennant has always been to draft the best player available....but given that this draft appears to be fairly week....unless there is a huge difference between drafting Henderson and some PF or PG ( as in Henderson is a "sure thing" and whatever other PF or PG that is available has huge "question marks" about how well he would do )...my preference is to look at a PF 1st, a PG 2nd, and a SG/SF last. This is where scouting needs to really do their homework.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Ya see if we do draft Henderson, that would leave us with 4 wings all worthy of 30 minutes a game in DG MD Rush and Henderson(eventually).

            Even if we lose MD, you have 3 guys for the future that will all be worthy of 30+ mins a game. Unless we go small often with DG at the 4, I just dont see that type of situation working out.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by ReginaldWayne View Post
              Even if we lose MD, you have 3 guys for the future that will all be worthy of 30+ mins a game. Unless we go small often with DG at the 4, I just dont see that type of situation working out.
              You need 3 wings capable of playing big minutes. 4 is better but you definitely need 3. With Marquis sure to be gone we need wings too.

              We need everything.

              We are absolutely in a draft the best available spot. Position should be of little importance to us. If you are a minor piece or two away from contending it makes some sense not to draft the best available player. We're far from that that point.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                We are absolutely in a draft the best available spot. Position should be of little importance to us. If you are a minor piece or two away from contending it makes some sense not to draft the best available player. We're far from that that point.
                For the most part I agree with you. There are a couple of player-types that I really don't think we should draft, however. The first is a true center. We've already got Hibbert. He'll wind up being a better center than anybody available in this draft unless a project guy like Mullens really pans out. The second would be a SF who can't play SG or PF. Danny's best position if by far the 3 spot, and I think we're really locked into him playing there about 38 min/game for the foreseeable future. It doesn't make much sense to me to draft a guy if you're going to have to play him out of position just to get him on the court. This doesn't apply to guys who are 2/3's like Rush or 3/4's like Thaddeus Young. I'm really talking about a guy like Al-Farouq Aminu (whatever his name is) that are never going to have the handle to play the two and never be big enough to really play the four spot.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Thabeet's last game. 16 points, 11 rebounds, 8 blocks.

                  I watched him very closely against ND and at first I felt like he was very passive but
                  what I really believe he was doing was being very selective about when to
                  go after an offensive rebound or draw an offensive foul. Roy's weakness is judgement
                  on defense although he has a superior offensive game compared to Thabeet.
                  The Pacers need defense and rebounding and Thabeet brings that and could possibly
                  play with Hibbert or back him up. Thabeet has excellent feet when moving around.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    If Thabeet's there at 10-12 when you pick, you take him and worry about figuring things out between him and Hibberd later. He won't be though - his offensive game leaves a lot to be desired but he should be a very solid NBA defender in a couple of years. He'll go top-5 unless some wierd personality or injury thing comes up.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                      If Thabeet's there at 10-12 when you pick, you take him and worry about figuring things out between him and Hibberd later. He won't be though - his offensive game leaves a lot to be desired but he should be a very solid NBA defender in a couple of years. He'll go top-5 unless some wierd personality or injury thing comes up.

                      I agree he will not be anywhere below 5 so if the Pacers want him they will have to go
                      after him, barring exceptional luck in the lottery. If not him then a PF
                      Maybe a Patterson or better yet Blair.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by owl View Post
                        I agree he will not be anywhere below 5 so if the Pacers want him they will have to go
                        after him, barring exceptional luck in the lottery. If not him then a PF
                        Maybe a Patterson or better yet Blair.
                        If the Pacers are in the lottery and have exceptional luck they will have one of the top three picks. They won't take Thabeet with one of the top 3 picks.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          If the Pacers are in the lottery and have exceptional luck they will have one of the top three picks. They won't take Thabeet with one of the top 3 picks.



                          ....................oooohhhh, you who knows so much. He's not dead, he's only mostly dead, there's a big difference you know.

                          ;-)
                          {o,o}
                          |)__)
                          -"-"-

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            I would not be suprised if a team selected Jordan Hill over Griffen. Hill looks more graceful with the ball. The game comes easier to him.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Hill has been ridiculously inconsistent all year. Hill might have moments of grace, but Griffin is more quick and powerful with the ball than Beasley was last year. He was a top 6ish guy last season and has only gotten better. Teams love that "definitive" quality with him.

                              Now it doesn't take long to get into guys where questions abound so I can see a big range for Hill after that, maybe 5-15. So much inconsistent play this year.


                              Still not sold on Harden, had another good but not great outing the other night. Bad shooting night. As a top 3 pick I keep waiting for him to take over.


                              Thabeet has so cemented my opinion on him it's not funny. It's 2 years now and he still does not rebound or score consistantly at all. He's shown almost no growth in those areas. However he 100% can block 3 shots a game at the NBA level. So I think he's still a top 3-4 pick because of that. You will get at least one thing for sure from him. Again, the safety of a guaranteed return.

                              I don't know Will. I think if the Pacers win the #3 pick they'd have to consider Thabeet simply for how he compliments Hibbert. If Roy has one huge fault on defense it's his help defense in the lane. Where he picks up fouls you'd have Thabeet swatting them to the cheap seats and intimidating away all lane penetration. Could be a good combo.


                              Henderson has to be the player most on the come as we head to the tourney/draft. Singler has kept his nose in it and I'd think he'd make the top 20 if he comes out.


                              Jrue has another game where Collison and Shipp dominate the ball. Rinse, repeat. I think he's gotta stay so he can take over at UCLA next year and become a top 5 pick.


                              Blair had another back to reality game like I ranted about after his UConn flash. I'm a fan but I really think people read way too much into that game and were too quick to dismiss the effort/involvement questions I have on him. I've seen 6-7 games with him now and it keeps popping up in my eyes. Just how he plays away from the ball at times, standing and watching rather than staying involved.

                              Having said that, I think that he or Henderson make the most sense for the Pacers unless they still have a shot at Jennings. If you draft Blair and he doesn't pan out, I still think it's a fair pick if you are drafting 8-9 simply because you do need a legit PF type of player, a banger and pick setter.

                              Of course I'm not sure that plays to JOB's system really, but you draft for the roster not the coach.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                I like Henderson, but he seems a bit like this years version of Brandon Rush. A solid college veteran 2 guard who does a lot of things well and is going to be billed as "NBA Ready" coming right out of college. They have different games, but similar situations. If we drafted Henderson, we'd really have to move Dunleavy to clear up the logjam at the wing.

                                Then there's just a bunch of guys I don't want or that I'm highly unsure of: The Wake Forest kids, Thabeet, Curry, Lawson.
                                Totally agree on both parts. You draft Henderson you have to clear Dun. Heck, keep Quis as your 6th man SF and have the wings be Rush/Henderson/Danny/Quis. With Quis poor 3pt shot that makes some real sense to me, and Quis costs less than Dun.

                                Of course the problem is no one will take Dun off the Pacers hands. Coming off this injury and his contract and the current financial state of the league he's as unmovable as Tinsley now.



                                I mentioned it before I think, but yet again another solid outing by Budinger. This kid was one of my favorite whipping boys last year, so I'm not trying to jock him. But his improved play demands notice, he's finally matching expectations. Dangerous pick with his potential to be AC/Dun. I think he's a bit quicker than either of them, and more active defensively for certain, but still...

                                Anyway, looks like staying has finally paid off for him and he looks poised to reclaim a top 15 draft spot after blowing his preseason ranking last year.
                                unless a project guy like Mullens really pans out.
                                Man, you look at where he's at right now and it just seems foolish for him to come out. He's not the main impact guy on his own squad. If you are still a college project I think the NBA needs to wait.

                                Thabeet's last game. 16 points, 11 rebounds, 8 blocks.

                                I watched him very closely against ND and at first I felt like he was very passive but...
                                Of course Harangody is not a good challenge for him either. Fun college player but nothing about his game looks like it will translate to the NBA. This is not Kevin Love here. Psycho T is more designed for the next level even. There was a time I thought he might be a nice sneaky late pick, but no more. He's got a lot of junk offense to his game that would get crushed at the next level.
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-01-2009, 03:18 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X