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 JB24 View Post
    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.
    I might be off base here but I think around this time of year some guys in front office positions around the league might be trying to send out "warning signs" about a player to give other GM's pause when considering him.

    If I remember correctly some passed on Granger due to concerns about his knee. How'd that work out for them?

    These so called off court issues will be looked into if Williams ends up on anyones short list in the coming weeks.

    If theres any truth at all, he'll drop, and he'll drop past 13 too.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
      I might be off base here but I think around this time of year some guys in front office positions around the league might be trying to send out "warning signs" about a player to give other GM's pause when considering him.

      If I remember correctly some passed on Granger due to concerns about his knee. How'd that work out for them?

      These so called off court issues will be looked into if Williams ends up on anyones short list in the coming weeks.

      If theres any truth at all, he'll drop, and he'll drop past 13 too.
      I haven't seen him higher than 13th, and that was coming to us in DraftExpress.

      Most other mocks have him anywhere from mid-teens to mid-20's.

      I'm almost positive that he'll be there for us to pick, if we so choose.

      Here are DX's listing of Strengths and Weaknesses:

      STRENGTHS:
      - Executes offensively
      - Transition play
      - Versatility
      - Ability to contest shots
      - Ability to get in passing lanes
      - All-around defense
      - Lateral quickness
      - Versatility to defend multiple positions
      - Energy/Intensity
      - Experience
      - Physical Toughness
      - Potential
      - Role-player potential
      - High-level productivity
      - Level of competition
      - Positional versatility
      - Young for class
      - Ability to create for others
      - Assist to turnover ratio
      - Court vision
      - Athleticism
      - Conditioning
      - NBA body
      - Size for position
      - Wingspan
      - Excellent rebounder
      - 3-point shooting percentages
      - Ability to catch and shoot
      - Improved perimeter shot
      WEAKNESSES:
      - Ability to get to free throw line
      - Ability to play at different speeds
      - Efficiency
      - Lacks significant offensive polish
      - Out of control at times
      - Settles for bad shots
      - Ability to create own shot
      - Struggles to create with off hand
      - Basketball IQ?
      - Questionable intangibles
      - Ability to shoot off the dribble
      - Free throw shooting
      - Pull-up jumper
      I saw him in bits and pieces this year, but the only game I watched in full was Michigan State, and...well...

      I like the strengths, and scratch my head at some of the weaknesses, but at 13, there will be warts. I'd be OK with us taking him.

      The guy that shows up in the occasional mock that scares the bejeezus out of me is BJ Mullens...Ack!

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by UncleReg View Post
        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...
        Miller can be considered an outlier for all intensive purposes.

        Here is where we disagree. In that list, Durant, Dwight, Wade, Lebron, Kobe, Harris and Pierce all have that explosive factor, the 2nd gear which is a mix of speed and strength, or, in more common terms, athleticism, are seen. The correlation between how explosive a player is and the rate in which they get to the line is pretty evident. Yes, there are exceptions, Miller got to the line because of the style he played, and on that list, I would categorizes Dirk and Martin to have average athleticism and explosive factor, but to say that there is a low correlation is absolutely insane. The correlation factor has to be at least in the high 70s, and I don't see a better explanation other than something less quantifiable, such as "unguardableness"

        Also, I don't understand why you chose to post the list of total FTA when average FTA is a much better statistic to go by in this case.

        As for the Granger knee injury thing, I was pretty sure he sat out the summer league after he was drafted due to his knee, did he not?
        Last edited by flox; 04-23-2009, 08:40 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Little pet peeve of mine... the expression is "for all intents and purposes."

          Carry on.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            Little pet peeve of mine... the expression is "for all intents and purposes."

            Carry on.
            I always crinkle an eyebrow at, "I could care less," (when it should be couldn't), but for some bizarre reason, I almost always find myself making that exact same error, and having to correct myself.

            The one that really bugs the **** out of me is jive being used instead of jibe. Jive is either slang associated with swing or early jazz music, or the music itself. It can also be slang for deceptive, exaggerated, or meaningless talk.

            Jibe means to be in harmony or accord; to agree.

            Therefore, when one piece of information isn't consistent, or is contradictory to another piece of information, it doesn't jibe. (Well, it doesn't jive, either, but that would be true even if the two pieces of information agreed.)

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              I haven't seen him higher than 13th, and that was coming to us in DraftExpress.

              Most other mocks have him anywhere from mid-teens to mid-20's.

              I'm almost positive that he'll be there for us to pick, if we so choose.

              Here are DX's listing of Strengths and Weaknesses:



              I saw him in bits and pieces this year, but the only game I watched in full was Michigan State, and...well...

              I like the strengths, and scratch my head at some of the weaknesses, but at 13, there will be warts. I'd be OK with us taking him.

              The guy that shows up in the occasional mock that scares the bejeezus out of me is BJ Mullens...Ack!
              I've only seen him play a couple of times, but those DX attributes really make him sound, and I say this only as a basketball player and not as a person, but Stephen Jackson is the guy who comes to mind.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                OK. it has to be done... so let it be me.

                For all intents and purposes I could care less!

                God, I feel sooooo much better.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Haha, I'm not the only one out there then, yes!

                  I've actually had an argument with my best friend, who plays Jazz and was also on the U of Illinois marching band about jive verse jibe.

                  Some people, huh? ;-)

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    I didn't realize Pacer fans were so good at word discussion. Wanna help me out with the NYtimes crossword today?

                    As for who to model TWill after..a more defensive version of Josh Howard with less slashing and midrange and more 3pt shooting?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                      I've only seen him play a couple of times, but those DX attributes really make him sound, and I say this only as a basketball player and not as a person, but Stephen Jackson is the guy who comes to mind.
                      I didn't have any problems with Stephen Jackson, particularly, as a player. I don't think he was the villain that some have portrayed him as, but I also don't think he's near the hero that others have portrayed him. The brawl behavior I considered stupid, and the Club Rio thing unfortunate, but I've never been able to see Stephen, or any of the other guys like Artest or Tinsley, as demons.

                      I think there are scenarios where Stephen could have worked out nicely here, but it didn't happen. By the time he was traded, it wasn't going to work here, so it was good for both to part ways.

                      God knows that Stephen has some skill sets that this team could use. Terrence Williams, if his strengths are as advertised, could be of great help to this team.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        Stephen's skill set could help a lot of teams, a great player for sure if you just look at on the court.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Is this the same Stephen Jackson who was continually critized on this board for constantlly "jacking" up shots, poor shooting %, the TO's he created, the lack of "D" he showed at times, shouting at Carlisle, or are you talking about another Stephen Jackson?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            I liked him with the Spurs, put him on a contender with a coach that knows how to deal with him (hint, not rick) and he'll be fine.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              Is this the same Stephen Jackson who was continually critized on this board for constantlly "jacking" up shots, poor shooting %, the TO's he created, the lack of "D" he showed at times, shouting at Carlisle, or are you talking about another Stephen Jackson?
                              Yes, and it's the same board that:

                              Reviles O'Brien.

                              Defends O'Brien.

                              Thinks McBob is a future starter.

                              Thinks McBob is a fringe player/scrub.

                              Thinks the Rush/Bayless trade was great.

                              Thinks that Bayless will be a star and laments the Rush/Bayless trade.

                              Thinks Walsh was a good man and a genius.

                              Thinks Walsh dithered too much and was too indulgent.

                              Thinks Jamaal Tinsley could be a very good point guard if he could stay on the floor.

                              Thinks Jamaal Tinsley should be kneecapped.

                              Thinks that Danny is the next Reggie (or...gag...Pippen)

                              Thinks Danny is overrated

                              Thinks the Pacers goal should be the playoffs every season.

                              Thinks the Pacers should tank to get a star unless they are already a serious contender.

                              Thinks the Pacers will never leave.

                              Wakes up in the middle of the night in cold sweats with visions of Mayflower vans.

                              Thinks Artest is the root of all evil.

                              Thinks we should have kept Artest over JO.

                              Thinks JO was a tragic figure, cursed by bad teammates and bad underpinnings.

                              Thinks JO was a prima donna completely undeserving of the role and compensation he was given.

                              Thinks Carlisle was a victim of a bad locker room.

                              Thinks Carlisle was a martinet who contributed mightily to the bad locker room.

                              Thinks the '90's were the pinnacle of NBA basketball.

                              Thinks the that '80's were the pinnacle of NBA basketball, and the '90's ushered in the current decline. (OK...that may just be me.)

                              Is absolutely convinced that Bird is responsible for the 2006 draft and the Murphleavy trade.

                              Is absolutely convinced that Walsh is responsible for the 2006 draft and the Murphleavy trade.


                              ......

                              The problem with your comment is two-fold.

                              First, it assumes that "this board" is a monolithic structure capable of holding only one opinion. It is nearly the antithesis of that. Virtually all substantive (for a basketball forum) subjects have not only dissenting opinions, but most have significant disagreements. You're statement implies that the posters commenting on Stephen Jackson are somehow contradicting themselves or worse, talking out of both sides of their mouths, simply because their comments don't jibe with the prevailing opinion of most posters on the board...or at least, some of the most vocal posters on the board. This shows no regard for what position these posters actually may have held.

                              Second, it seemingly chides someone for changing their opinion. While people should not be fickle, they should be open to new information. Staking out a position and clinging to it doggedly, regardless of any new input, isn't a sign of intellectual integrity, it is a demonstration intellectual dishonesty.

                              My opinion on the Jackson issue is largely the same as it's been for years: Decent player, not the greatest judgment, somewhat unfairly villified by the locals, but had definitely used up his chances here...it was best for both him and the Pacers that he go.

                              However, I have had my opinion evolve, and been proven outright wrong on other issues, myriad times on this board and in my life, and it will continue to happen. If we're all going to be tied forever to whatever our first opinion was, then this board, and the conversation on it, will become a complete waste of time. We might as well make a series of pronouncements, then move on.

                              The people who take a stand, then accept or reject information based on how well it does or doesn't support their position are the ones that you put on ignore. The people who are willing to change their minds, while trying to change mine...those are the ones worth the time.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                                Second, it seemingly chides someone for changing their opinion. While people should not be fickle, they should be open to new information. Staking out a position and clinging to it doggedly, regardless of any new input, isn't a sign of intellectual integrity, it is a demonstration intellectual dishonesty.

                                However, I have had my opinion evolve, and been proven outright wrong on other issues, myriad times on this board and in my life, and it will continue to happen. If we're all going to be tied forever to whatever our first opinion was, then this board, and the conversation on it, will become a complete waste of time. We might as well make a series of pronouncements, then move on.

                                The people who take a stand, then accept or reject information based on how well it does or doesn't support their position are the ones that you put on ignore. The people who are willing to change their minds, while trying to change mine...those are the ones worth the time.
                                "Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today."

                                Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self Reliance"
                                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                                - Salman Rushdie

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X