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 vnzla81 View Post
    I jus found this in NBA.com

    2009 NBA Draft: Consensus Mock Draft
    http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...sus/index.html

    Most Common Picks
    1. LAC Blake Griffin (12) 8. NYK Stephen Curry (3)
    2. MEM Ricky Rubio (6) 9. TOR Demar DeRozan (7)
    3. OKC Hasheem Thabeet (6) 10. MIL Jonny Flynn, Jordan Hill (4)
    4. SAC Ricky Rubio, Jordan Hill (3) 11. NJN DeJuan Blair (5)
    5. WAS James Harden (5) 12. CHA Gerald Henderson (3)
    6. MIN James Harden (3) 13. IND Gerald Henderson, Jonny Flynn (3)
    7. GSW Tyreke Evans (5) 14. PHX Ty Lawson, Brandon Jennings (2)

    they have all the mock drafts in this webside.
    I'd be okay with Gerald Henderson at the GF spot.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      There was an article in the ESPN Magazine that basically says the same thing......a very solid Shotblocker is common among all Championship Teams. You would think that Hibbert with his 7'2" frame could be that....but when he can't stay out of foul trouble and Granger is the Team's leading Shotblocker....you know that something is missing.
      To be fair, it was Hibbert's rookie season.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Chase settling for jumpers/playing soft worries me a little because that was his issue 2 years ago. But the flipside is that he was very physical during the season this year, and then suddenly he doesn't play that way?

        Sounds fishy, and more fishy is Teague playing disinterested. I sense a trend of promise efforts. With guys like Mullens pulling out you know players have begun to get a sense of where they are going.

        This happens every year and suddenly 2-3 borderline guys are the "most impressive guy at the workout" or are "helping themselves more than anyone". Either it's smokescreen or some scouts are being duped into throwing away 4-5 months of actual applied basketball skills in live game competition for an afternoon or two of late scouting period 3 v 3 drills and shuttle runs.




        Jrue has made a massive impression it appears, backing what people already suspected from him. Definitely feels like the Westbrook of this draft. I made the mistake of listening to Kravitz on the way home. Wow, I love how the local sportswriter doesn't even know who the F Holliday is basically. God he's awful.



        Okay, so Calipari shows up, Patterson decides to return and Jodie Meeks keeps his name in the draft? WTF? Seems like a terrible decision.



        How is Flynn a top 15 pick? That I don't get one bit.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Are there fans of any team who wouldn't go ape-**** if Flynn was picked before Jennings?
          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            It's official, Chad Ford is the worst mock draft "expert" out there.

            I'll put 1K down against him right now that Hasborough AND Daye don't both get drafted before DeJuan Blair. I mean seriously, and this he had up on 6/3??? Is he even paying the least bit of attention.

            No one and I mean no one thinks of Blair as a lesser PF prospect than Daye and PsychoT. Ford needs to stop doing these things, and people need to stop getting amped up over his March draft machine which is just a train wreck. Idea, fine; actual info he has, terrible.




            Lawal and Vasquez are both pulling out of the draft.
            http://www.nbadraft.net/node/7137

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
              Are there fans of any team who wouldn't go ape-**** if Flynn was picked before Jennings?
              Actually I think my Kravitz comment tells us that there are plenty of nitwits who wouldn't think twice about celebrating Flynn over Jennings. Why?

              Because they've heard of Flynn because he played an epic multi-OT game for a team they've heard of. This time of year just depresses me. Look, I get that back in the heart of the NBA season most fans don't have time to keep up with recruits.

              But damn, that's long gone and guys like Kravitz still don't know much of anything about Holliday or Jennings, let alone Maynor or Mills. All they know is Curry got TV time, Flynn got TV time, Griffin is really good and Thabeet is tall. Most of them don't even know who James Harden is or why he's ranked top 5-6.


              This is exactly how I could be excited about dropping to get C Lee late first/early 2nd and fans were shocked that he was such a steal for the Magic. It just seems like while those of us who follow these guys might have differing opinions, it's not that hard to get a good, rough idea of who can do what simply by paying a bit of attention.

              What gets me is that we do it for fun and somehow do it better than people paid to write about it. It's the era of Google and YouTube, there is no excuse for ignorance.


              END RANT

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                Are there fans of any team who wouldn't go ape-**** if Flynn was picked before Jennings?
                ...I wouldn't.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Holiday won't workout with a bunch of players expected to go much lower than him. He's looking out for himself, and working out with those guys would do absolutely nothing to improve his standing.
                  I'd guess Sacto at this point. Again, he's this year's Westbrook. W'brook was not tracking ahead of Bayless or anywhere near top 5 till right before the draft, and even then I recall him still slotting behind Bayless.


                  Jennings on Rubio - I take it as honest from a guy who lived it. If it were reversed and it was Jennings not working out and Rubio going against the elite PG prospects wouldn't we think less of Jennings?

                  I think Rubio is talented, but so is Jennings. He took a lot of lumps in Europe. And if you want a pass-first PG there's no prospect more in line with that mentality than Jennings.

                  Moot discussion for Pacers fans as Holliday, Rubio and Jennings should be gone long before 13.


                  Flynn does interview well, I agree.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    I'd guess Sacto at this point. Again, he's this year's Westbrook. W'brook was not tracking ahead of Bayless or anywhere near top 5 till right before the draft, and even then I recall him still slotting behind Bayless.


                    Jennings on Rubio - I take it as honest from a guy who lived it. If it were reversed and it was Jennings not working out and Rubio going against the elite PG prospects wouldn't we think less of Jennings?

                    I think Rubio is talented, but so is Jennings. He took a lot of lumps in Europe. And if you want a pass-first PG there's no prospect more in line with that mentality than Jennings.

                    Moot discussion for Pacers fans as Holliday, Rubio and Jennings should be gone long before 13.


                    Flynn does interview well, I agree.
                    What? We are reading different reports on Jennings I think...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      I'm guessing Ford is taking into account possible knee issues with Blair and that's why he has him so low. I don't think he actually thinks Daye and Hansbrough are better PF prospects. If he does, then I agree with everything you said.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        From Draftexpress.com......

                        Atlanta is reportedly looking to package the #19 pick along with Speedy Claxton’s contract, in order to clear additional cap room, likely to resign Mike Bibby. 80% of Claxton’s contract (5.2 million) will be picked up by an insurance company, making this a relatively cheap investment for a team with cap room looking to acquire another pick.


                        I believe there is going to be a lot of wheeling and dealing on draft night. Bring your
                        pencil and eraser to draft night. :-)
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Some Fun stuff from Givony at DX:

                          http://www.draftexpress.com/blog/Jon...June-16th-3263

                          The talk is that Monta Ellis is unhappy with the direction the organization is heading in, and still holds a bit of grief over the way they held his contract status in limbo for months following his moped injury. For weeks we’ve heard that Ellis is no longer interested in playing for Golden State, and apparently it had reached a point where it was “close to popping off” in the words of one NBA executive—meaning going to the media and publicly demanding a trade.

                          General Manager Larry Riley and head coach Don Nelson reportedly flew to Atlanta to meet with Ellis this week, and basically have made every attempt possible to defuse the situation, at the very least in order to not lose leverage in any trade talk they will inevitably be involved in. One NBA executive we spoke with believes that Ellis was promised that the Warriors will not be picking a point guard with the #7 pick, and that he will be the one running the show for them next year.

                          A number of agents seem to have heard similar things or just don’t want to get anywhere near this situation, and both Jrue Holiday and Stephen Curry are currently refusing to work out for Golden State. The same goes for Ricky Rubio and Tyreke Evans.
                          Rubio and Evans will likely be gone before 7, but Curry probably won't, and Holiday just worked out for us...interested in d_c's take.

                          While plenty of media outlets are speculating about a potential deal between Cleveland and Phoenix, we’ve heard some talk of a possible trade between Cleveland and Washington actually. The deal would essentially be a cost-cutting move for the Wizards, sending Antawn Jamison and filler (Mike James) to the Cavs for Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic. Wallace seems likely to retire, and Pavlovic is on a non-guaranteed contract for next season. It’s not clear whether the Wizards would need to surrender the #5 pick. Jamison is attractive to the Cavs since he’s exactly the type of combo forward they were missing to match up with Orlando’s Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu.
                          I'd like Jamison in Cleveland, if I were a Cavs fan...

                          Other stuff:

                          Don’t be surprised to see players start working out for teams that appear to be slightly outside their draft range on first glance, in hopes of finding the best possible fit. Jrue Holiday for example is working out for the Indiana Pacers at #13, while James Johnson will be in Salt Lake City next week working out for the Jazz, who hold the #20 pick.

                          -We’re hearing that DeJuan Blair is in pretty good shape at the moment, and he continues to have very strong workouts that are easing the concerns teams have about his knee. Blair’s draft range looks pretty steady between 12 and 16, although he will work out for teams above and below those picks. Don’t be surprised to see a team like Oklahoma City or Portland try to make a move for him on draft night, as both organizations are reportedly very high on him.

                          -Does B.J. Mullens have a promise from Chicago at 16? That doesn’t seem to make a great deal of sense considering that he’s working out for Philadelphia at 17 later this week…The talk of a promise started once Mullens pulled out of the New Jersey Nets group workout, but it’s possible he just didn’t want to deal with the prospect of matching up with Luke Nevill again. Mullens really struggled in the two previous group workouts that they went head to head.

                          -The Oklahoma City Thunder are reportedly in Los Angeles right now visiting with Hasheem Thabeet and watching him work out.

                          -Earl Clark is having some very strong workouts as of late, and is rising back up teams’ draft boards. He was very good in Minnesota apparently, and is strongly in the mix in New Jersey (#11), Charlotte (#12), Phoenix (#14) and Detroit (#15).
                          He also mentioned that Minny may be trying to trade Kevin Love for the #2 (and filler), and that Houston is actively shopping McGrady...but a lot of teams would choke on the $20mm salary.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            This is where draft positioning gets pretty interesting. Here's what I'm thinking on the issue right now.

                            I believe there is a 99% chance that these 7 players will be picked in the top 9:

                            Griffen, Thabeet, Harden, Rubio, Curry, Derozan, Evans

                            The next 2 slots will be filled by 2 of the following 3 players: Holiday, Hill, Jennings.

                            So, Milwaukee's sitting at #10 with one of those 3 guys on the board. I think they'd take Hill or Holiday, but I can't see them taking Jennings (I don't think that he and Skiles could co-exist). However, Milwaukee's rumored to be in love with Flynn, and that seems like a pretty good fit to me. I could see them passing on any of those guys for Flynn or maybe even Blair.

                            The next 2 picks are New Jersey and Charlotte. I don't think either team is going to take a PG. The implication is that it's possible that either Holiday or Jennings could fall to #13. Holiday worked out in Indy yesterday and Jennings might come later this week.

                            I think that Blair, J. Johnson, Henderson, and Clark all have to be strongly in the mix for NJ and Charlotte.
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Jamison would be a nice fit in Cleveland. Still wouldn't have someone to guard Dwight, but they'd match up a lot better on the perimeter.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Some of the guards probably don't want to work out for the Warriors because they don't know how much they'd be featured in the offense considering Monta is already there. Wouldn't surprise me to see Monta traded this summer, which is another story anyways.

                                Regardless, I don't think this would affect whether or not the Warriors draft one of those players or not. They'll draft someone even if they haven't worked out for them. It's happened in the past (Troy Murphy, Brandan Wright). Bottom line is any of those players refusing to workout for them won't affect who they draft. Not much of a story, really.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X