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

    As the Pacers stand right now I think you can pretty much count out them taking a big. The quality just isn't there early on in the draft. I think some of the bigs to be available late first/early second can be just as good as the bigs you can get at 13.

    I have mostly been a fan of Williams/Henderson but the point guards are getting more talk as of late. In fact there are rumors that the Pacers are considering taking a point guard. I wonder does that mean you let Jack walk, trade Ford, and then is there going to be a taker for Tinsley?

    My thoughts on the point guards.

    - Ty Lawson
    Rumored to be highly regarded by Bird and co last summer. I still don't know what to think of Lawson. He will struggle on offense with getting his shot off and defense due to his lack of height. He has great speed but so does TJ Ford. I do like the fact that Lawson is a pass first point guard but that's about it.

    - Johnny Flynn
    I love Flynn and what I read about him especially around draft time. People love DeJuan Blair and his charisma and I think Flynn has just as much of that as Blair does. I like Flynn better than Lawson but I think Flynn could likely be gone by the time the Pacers pick and there is one point guard I like a little more.

    - Eric Manyor
    I really like him for the Pacers. First of all this guy is a winner and he is clutch. He wants to take the big shots and he can make them. Second of all he can lead a team. Does a good job of scoring and passing. He has every offensive tool you can want in a point guard. Decent size too. Has not shown defenseive toughness but I think he can and will on the NBA level.

    There are others out there like Brandon Jennings and Jrue Holiday. I am just not as high on those guys. They have high bust potential. If Holiday would play another year in college being the point guard I would have a much better feeling about him but I would shy away from him in this draft if I were the Pacers.

    It will be very interesting to see what teams a head of the Pacers do. Out of the teams picking a head of the Pacers I think that the Bobcats and Nets should be about the only ones who are not a lock to pick point guards. I am hoping that Jennings goes to Golden State and Curry to New York and this should leave the Pacers with some good options either by drafting a point guard or a wing.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/06/...uards/#respond

      15 GMs rank the top 13 point guards

      Posted by John Paulsen (06/01/2009 @ 2:28 pm)

      I don’t know how he did it, but Chad Ford convinced 15 NBA GMs/executives to rank the top 13 point guards in the draft. If I were running a team and he asked me to do this, I would have told him to go jump off a cliff. (Or I’d have my secretary rank the players by how cute she thinks they are and pass that off as my list.)

      Anyway, here are the rankings, along with an average ranking. Ford’s column has a lot more detail on each player.

      1. Ricky Rubio (avg 1.9)
      2. Stephen Curry (2.4)
      3. Jonny Flynn (3.0)
      4. Jrue Holiday (3.8)
      5. Tyreke Evans (4.5)
      6. Jeff Teague (6.5)
      7. Brandon Jennings (6.8)
      8. Eric Maynor (8.0)
      9. Ty Lawson (9.5)
      10. Patrick Mills (10.0)
      11. Darren Collison (11.0)
      12. Nick Calathes (12.0)
      13. Toney Douglas (12.5)

      I’m surprised that Stephen Curry moved up so much. Prior to the combine, there were still some who questioned whether or not he was even a first round talent. But apparently he put those concerns to rest. Besides, if you can shoot the ball like he can (and aren’t a complete stiff in other areas of the game), there’s a place for you in the NBA.

      Brandon Jennings is hurting himself by skipping the combine and the Reebok Eurocamp. He’s going to need to go head to head with some of these players if he wants to stick in the lottery. Conversely, Jonny Flynn is impressing in his interviews and teams are happy to see that he measures over six-foot in shoes. He’s basically the same size as Chris Paul. So is Ty Lawson, but he continues to fall. I still think whoever gets him in the mid- or late-first round is going to have a starter-caliber point guard in a couple of seasons.

      Florida’s Nick Calathes raised a few eyebrows when he decided to sign a three-year deal with Greek team Panathinaikos, but since he already has dual citizenship and a closer look at the contract reveals that he’d need to go in the lottery to match the financial windfall he’s going to enjoy overseas, it’s probably a good decision for the young man.
      Didn't see this posted yet, & thought this might have some interest....
      I'm surprised that Holiday & Evans are not listed higher. Measurments & potential seem to rule the day at draft time - then again, maybe they are trying to throw us off. Kinda interesting to see Jennings is falling. I think he could be t/y's "Bayless", but not sure thats who I want us picking. I know we can't afford a "miss", but I think I want Evans/ Holiday/ Curry in that order myself. They all have more size then the others & each posess some unique skill sets. IMO, you can throw Jennings/ Flynn/ Lawson all in a hat & you will get almost the same thing, w/ the same chance of "hitting" as you do "missing".
      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        If Brandon Jennings slips to us I will be amazed.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
          If Brandon Jennings slips to us I will be amazed.
          He very well could. And at that point he'd be excellent value at #13.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by d_c View Post
            He very well could. And at that point he'd be excellent value at #13.
            I agree...I can't tell whether current "disappointment" will turn into a full-fledged case of the jitters come draft day or not. Jennings could be the guy that falls this year...particularly with Jrue and Flynn moving up.

            The question is whether Bird takes him as a player, or does he take him as a trading chip? (If he fell to us.)

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              People have had Jennings ahead of Evans for awhile. And just because he doesn't show to the main camp, he drops. I want to know why he didn't. Is he doing private workouts?

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                People have had Jennings ahead of Evans for awhile. And just because he doesn't show to the main camp, he drops. I want to know why he didn't. Is he doing private workouts?
                That's a good question. I'm sure he'll do some private workouts, as I think refusing those would be suicide.

                What I was trying to say in my earlier post was that I couldn't tell whether the "bad" (or mediocre) comments he's getting now were just a temporary hissy fit from some guys disappointed that he didn't come (when they expected him), or if it's the beginning of a deeper look that's going to cost him.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  this may have already been posted and if it is shame on me, but who does chad ford have us drafting in his new mock draft? 2.0 i think it is. Stupid insider

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by themayhem87 View Post
                    this may have already been posted and if it is shame on me, but who does chad ford have us drafting in his new mock draft? 2.0 i think it is. Stupid insider
                    Jeff Teague

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      People have had Jennings ahead of Evans for awhile. And just because he doesn't show to the main camp, he drops. I want to know why he didn't. Is he doing private workouts?
                      Jennings has to do private workouts. He skipped the NBA combine and he skipped the Eurocamp. Private workouts are the only way any GM's are going to see him. If we pick Jennings at 13, it's a good pick, even if he doesn't pan out.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        I think that Earl Clark will be our pick if he's still an option at 13. I've been watching clips of him all day, and he impresses me. He'd be a great guy off the bench, and eventually in the starting lineup. He's athletic, can rebound, play 2 positions, and is just the guy to go alongside big Roy. anybody else think he's gonna be our pick?
                        Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          I agree...I can't tell whether current "disappointment" will turn into a full-fledged case of the jitters come draft day or not. Jennings could be the guy that falls this year...particularly with Jrue and Flynn moving up.

                          The question is whether Bird takes him as a player, or does he take him as a trading chip? (If he fell to us.)
                          I am a Jennings supporter and would be disappointed if Bird traded him for a package consisting primarily of later picks in the first round rather than proven commodities.

                          If we get Jennings at 13 that would be a coup of Granger or Bayless proportions and we would probably get the steal of what is otherwise a really dismal draft. No trade to trade our steal for multiple dismal picks. Now, if we were to trade Jennings for a pass first PG who is 6'4'' and can be a good starter and maybe some other change, that is a different story.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by pianoman View Post
                            I think that Earl Clark will be our pick if he's still an option at 13. I've been watching clips of him all day, and he impresses me. He'd be a great guy off the bench, and eventually in the starting lineup. He's athletic, can rebound, play 2 positions, and is just the guy to go alongside big Roy. anybody else think he's gonna be our pick?
                            So much of that depends on what the teams picking ahead of the Pacers think of him.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by pianoman View Post
                              I think that Earl Clark will be our pick if he's still an option at 13. I've been watching clips of him all day, and he impresses me. He'd be a great guy off the bench, and eventually in the starting lineup. He's athletic, can rebound, play 2 positions, and is just the guy to go alongside big Roy. anybody else think he's gonna be our pick?
                              I would not be upset if he was selected. Ultimately you have to hope TPTB know what they
                              are doing in regards to evaluating these players.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Pianoman-

                                I've been a Clark guy for the last couple weeks. His game needs
                                alot of refinement. And it'd be great if he was an inch or two
                                taller. But with his length (7-2 wingspan and 9-1 reach as I
                                recall), he should 'play' like a 6-10/6-11 guy.

                                With his raw physical talent, size, etc., given the Pacers' crying
                                need for a guy who can play with some explosiveness and (as
                                Carlisle used to say) 'force' inside, I don't see how they can pass
                                him up if he's there.

                                Another kid who's getting no PD mention whom I suspect is a very
                                real possibility is Mullens.

                                Just my take.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X