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

    There is absolutely no realistic scenario that I can come up with where the Pacers re-sign both Jarrett Jack and Marquis Daniels.

    In fact, I'd bet $1 million (of Buck's money) that after Bird left the presser, Morway and/or his finance guy told Bird, "Yeah, there's no way we're picking up Quis' option."

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
      Having a rook backup Granger & Rush doesn't sound like "Plan A" to me.
      It isn't and never will be. Bird basically said he will pick up the Quis option if it appears that Dunleavy is going to be out for a really long time. Like I said earlier, I don't know how long a long time is to Bird, because it already appears Dun is going to miss at least half of next season.

      But didn't someone else say that Dun could be back earlier than originally thought? I'm pretty confused.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        The thing is, the deadline for picking up Daniel's option is the end of June.

        I don't think Bird, or anyone else, is going to have any kind of time table on Dunleavy's return by the end of June.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
          Agreed as well. I'm a huge fan of TWill, but Henderson can jump over buildings.

          Top 10 dunks from 08-09 for him (make sure to watch in HD):

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikv-3KoXW_U
          Henderson may have a bigger vertical but you have to remember he is 2 inches shorter than T-Will. They both get to the same place above the rim.
          T-Will just does it with less effort and maybe a little more flair. Not saying Flair is important, just tells me he has more control of his body and also knowing exactly where he is to the rim. Ok now lets compare.

          Henderson was a paultry .333 from 3pt land compared to .385 for T-Will.
          Henderson grabbed 5 boards per game compared to 8 for T-Will.
          Henderson dished out 2 assists per game compared to 5 for T-Will.
          Henderson gets 1.2 steals per compared to 2.3 for T-Will.
          Henderson scores 16 per compared to 12.5 for T-Will.
          They both played close to same minutes. 29 min for Henderson and 34 for T-Will.

          They both played on pretty good teams in tough conferences.

          When I add all this up, T-Will has a more complete game. Henderson is a fantastic leaper, but since when does dunking make someone better than the next.

          I like them both. I just think T-Will has more to offer in his game.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            but since when does dunking make someone better than the next.
            It doesn't. I don't think anyone was saying that either. We were just commenting on who had a better vertical.

            I agree that T-Will has more to offer as far as being a more well-rounded player. I personally don't have much interest in drafting Henderson. I would much rather have Williams.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
              Having a rook backup Granger & Rush doesn't sound like "Plan A" to me.

              With Dunleavy out & Daniels not coming back even if the BPA is a 2/3 I look for Bird to add a vetern wing player with part of the mid-level, or get one in a trade.
              It's probably not anybody's first choice, but it looks like a pretty realistic reading of this year's draft crop to me. At 13 pretty much all of your talented bigs are going to be gone, but there will still be some good wing talent left on the board.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by stevo View Post
                Henderson may have a bigger vertical but you have to remember he is 2 inches shorter than T-Will. They both get to the same place above the rim.
                T-Will just does it with less effort and maybe a little more flair. Not saying Flair is important, just tells me he has more control of his body and also knowing exactly where he is to the rim. Ok now lets compare.

                Henderson was a paultry .333 from 3pt land compared to .385 for T-Will.
                Henderson grabbed 5 boards per game compared to 8 for T-Will.
                Henderson dished out 2 assists per game compared to 5 for T-Will.
                Henderson gets 1.2 steals per compared to 2.3 for T-Will.
                Henderson scores 16 per compared to 12.5 for T-Will.
                They both played close to same minutes. 29 min for Henderson and 34 for T-Will.

                They both played on pretty good teams in tough conferences.

                When I add all this up, T-Will has a more complete game. Henderson is a fantastic leaper, but since when does dunking make someone better than the next.

                I like them both. I just think T-Will has more to offer in his game.
                Wow, 5 minutes makes a huge difference statistically, Henderson was on a much worse team, his FT rate is impressive which means that his slashing and explosiveness offensively is greater, his position in college is different from TWills, he had to do a lot more whereas Louisville had a bunch of good defenders. TWill's good but his off the court issues, poor athleticism, and unsure ability to score make him the unsafe pick.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by stevo View Post


                  but since when does dunking make someone better than the next.

                  It didn't in James "Flight" White's case.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by flox View Post
                    TWill's good but his off the court issues, poor athleticism, and unsure ability to score make him the unsafe pick.


                    What off-court issues are you speaking of? I live in Louisville and I'm surrounded by UofL fans. No one has ever mentioned him having issues off the hardwood.

                    Poor athleticism? Yikes.

                    In addition, his ability to create is one of his greatest strengths. His shot dramatically improved at about the midway point of the season, and his numbers from there on out were very strong.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by flox View Post
                      his FT rate is impressive which means that his slashing and explosiveness offensively is greater
                      Since when does FT rate = explosiveness?

                      Originally posted by flox View Post
                      TWill's good but his off the court issues, poor athleticism, and unsure ability to score make him the unsafe pick.
                      I am speechless.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Originally posted by flox View Post
                        Wow, 5 minutes makes a huge difference statistically, Henderson was on a much worse team, his FT rate is impressive which means that his slashing and explosiveness offensively is greater, his position in college is different from TWills, he had to do a lot more whereas Louisville had a bunch of good defenders. TWill's good but his off the court issues, poor athleticism, and unsure ability to score make him the unsafe pick.
                        “He’s like a point forward to us with his vision and athleticism,” point guard Andre McGee said. “He has almost a triple-double every game.”

                        “I saw a guy with Michael Jordan athleticism,” Pitino recalled hearing.

                        Do I need to continue? I can keep going.

                        "At the end of the day, Terrence Williams will be a player many teams will regret passing on, especially if he’s drafted where he’s projected. Personally I’ll take players that can defend, pass the ball and can take quarters off the top of the backboard any day of the week. Put him in an up-tempo offense and you’ll have a very special player, and the fact that every 5’10 point guard in the draft is listed above him, is downright sickening. Terrence is a legitimate 6’5 and a solid 215 pounds; the perfect size for a shooting guard in the NBA. Whatever GM drafts him, will get a solid player in what many people are calling a weak draft."


                        Here is a link that says this off-court stuff is fabricated.

                        http://faninterference.wordpress.com...oral-concerns/

                        Please provide me any information you have on his off-court problems. I would like to see them. I can't seem to find any.


                        look I know they both are worthy, but to just flat out say he is a unsafe pick is being a little rediculous.

                        Show me some facts and I will keep an open mind.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post


                          What off-court issues are you speaking of? I live in Louisville and I'm surrounded by UofL fans. No one has ever mentioned him having issues off the hardwood.
                          I'm wondering the same thing. Chad Ford's mentioned in his chats and it's popped up in his T-Will's player descriptions on several different sites.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Chad Ford gets his information from GM's and team scouts, and they all say he has off the court issues, other scouting sites agree with this assessment. So if they say so, and a lot of people are repeating it, then there must be something to that. If you want answers, go ask the scouts themselves.

                            I misspoke. His athelticism is great, above average for NBA standards maybe, but it's poor when compared to the specimen that is Henderson.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by UncleReg View Post
                              Since when does FT rate = explosiveness?



                              I am speechless.
                              Really now? Are you telling me that there is no correlation between how explosive a player is and the rate in which he draws fouls?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by flox View Post
                                Really now? Are you telling me that there is no correlation between how explosive a player is and the rate in which he draws fouls?
                                The speechless part was in reaction to your calling T-Will unathletic and having off-court issues. I already touched on this topic earlier in the thread. Read again at your convenience:

                                Originally posted by UncleReg View Post
                                WOW. Chad Ford has some TERRIBLE sources. I have no clue where he couldve come up with that other than being misinformed. The one and only "incident" he has had off the court was when he was suspended for one game by Pitino due to academic reasons his freshman year. Otherwise there is no dirt on this kid other than he buys too many shoes (he has like 150+ pairs of shoes in his colletion).

                                And you don't have to believe me. Just look at his record. Pitino is the kind of coach that will suspend you for a game if you show up to a team meeting 10 minutes late. In T-Will's four-year career at U of L he has only missed one game, that one game he sat out his freshman year. So if he had any other problems than the one I referred to, we wouldve known...

                                In short, attitude is that LAST thing you have to worry about with this kid.
                                Now, as for the FT rate means you are explosive argument... do you seriously call yourself a Pacers fan when one of the most prolific free throw shooters in the history of the game was the lanky, skinny, wiry, Mr. 6-foot-7 but can barely dunk Reggie Miller? I'm not saying that explosive players do not get to the charity stripe (this sentence is key for you to read...). But your logic of high FT rate implies explosiveness is wrong.

                                Here are this year's top ten in FTA:
                                1. Dwight Howard , ORL
                                2. Dwyane Wade , MIA
                                3. LeBron James , CLE
                                4. Chris Bosh , TOR
                                5. Devin Harris , NJN
                                6. Kobe Bryant , LAL
                                7. Paul Pierce , BOS
                                8. Dirk Nowitzki , DAL
                                9. Kevin Martin , SAC
                                10. Kevin Durant , OKC

                                The only players here that merit being called "explosive" are Dwight, Wade, 'Bron, and Kobe... and they get to the line for far more reasons then just being explosive. I feel like I wasted five minutes of my life just arguing this...
                                Last edited by UncleReg; 04-22-2009, 11:52 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X