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

The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

    The Phoenix Suns and avoidingtheclowns are now on the pick.

    I'll give you $0.50 for it.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      I am wondering the same thing. Honestly, I was hoping for this to drag on a lot longer than it did up until my pick. I've been at the track all weekend, and didn't want to leave you guys waiting for my pick.

      As for picking another PG, I would assume a trade would ensue.
      Could you give a bit of explanation as to why you took Lawson over everyone else, and/or why you think he is BPA?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        I don't like Lawson for the Pacers (I haven't read Tbird's analysis yet, so that could change). I'd rather roll the dice on Jonny Flynn or Eric Maynor. In this scenario I'd probably go a different direction than PG and look at guys like James Johnson, DeJuan Blair, and Terrence Williams. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if this was the actual pick.
        I pretty much agree with this. I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but DraftExpress and WalterFootball both had Jrue Holliday coming to us. I'd like that or Evans.

        Failing that, I might go with Blair, if (and it's a big if) I could be convinced that his weight would not hurt his quickness. Failing that, I like Maynor, Johnson, Henderson, and Williams all better than Lawson.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

          Originally posted by Pacers View Post
          Could you give a bit of explanation as to why you took Lawson over everyone else, and/or why you think he is BPA?
          Did I just not explain that? I said I felt he was the best player available. Sure, looking at our PG situation, but I was in a crunch.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

            Count,

            That is the list of players I realistically would like to see us draft.

            "I like Maynor, Johnson, Henderson, and Williams"

            They are all mature players. Johnson is the guy I would like to see us draft the most. He would provide athleticism and strength in the front court. I see him as a PF in this league. He is not a SF, IMO. I love Maynor. He reminds me of Deron Williams. Just not as flashy or strong. I see his career resembling Billups. Struggling to find playing time and once he gets his opportunity he becomes a great player. Henderson is a three year playter at Duke. He is athletic and strong defensively. He seems like he understands the game well. Terrence Williams has huge upside if his shot comes around. I think he could be an excellent NBA player and possibly a borderline All-Star if he has the work ethic.

            I also wouldn't mind seeing us taking Blair. He is a terrific rebounder. If you lead the Big East in rebounding, that kind of thing translates to the NBA. He is big and would fit well next to Hibbert who is excellent at boxing out. They would complement one another well. Within those five picks I will be happy. If they go a different direction like Lawson or Flynn I will be less happy only because that is a mixed message to where they want to go. Short PG, who we already have two of on the roster? I just don't get that unless we deal Ford before the draft.
            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

              Luckily the Pacers won't actually take Ty Lawson, at least not with that pick.

              Of course to be honest I think they could trade down in a 1 for 2 (or a 2 for something where you improve your 2nd pick and reduce your first pick) because it's looking like they might still get Blair and TWill or maybe better yet TWill and then Pendergraph if they had later picks. I also still really like Budinger's game.

              I really don't like where the Pacers are falling this year in the draft; it's an awkward point full of reaches. All the guys worth getting are slotted later than the Pacers position. The big hope is some slipping on other guys. And of course to me TWill is worthy of this pick, but it would appear he's tracking lower now. Since he's not really a jump shooter at this point I'd say he's very likely to slip during tryouts full of drills and weak on actual gamesmanship and awareness which are his strong points.


              Melli - I agree quite a bit with your last post. I will say that to me Flynn is a Lawson clone. Those 2 bring the same issue in my book. Great fit as a college floor leader, very little of the NBA skill set and PG tricks to survive in the NBA.


              I've grown to like Harden, but I still can't shake a sense of him underwhelming when he comes out. He swings from explosive to almost unathletic within just a matter of possessions in game. But he's still likely to go top 5.

              I think Hill is pressing past Thabeet just as you guys took them.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                I like what Duke is saying. Lawson is one of the best PGs still available in our mock draft. Either him or Flynn would be probably the best PGs probably still available at 13.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                  Originally posted by TroyMurphy3 View Post
                  I like what Duke is saying. Lawson is one of the best PGs still available in our mock draft. Either him or Flynn would be probably the best PGs probably still available at 13.
                  That's the problem with this draft......I speculate that after the 9th or 10th pick......Lawson or Flynn maybe considered the "best PG available"....but who would be considered the "best player available" is debateable at the 13th spot.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                    Sorry for the delay. I’m sitting in a Pittsburgh airport hotel courtesy of the mechanically challenged folks at US Airways with an oddly spotty wireless connection. You might wonder why, as the GM of a professional basketball team, am I traveling coach instead of say a team plane? Believe it or not, Sarver is actually that cheap. Dude is on the board of directors for SkyWest Airlines but I still have to use Priceline? B*st*rd.

                    Let’s take a look at the returning lineup, shall we?

                    PG Nash / Dragic
                    SG Richardson / Barbosa / Tucker
                    SF Dudley
                    PF Stoudemire / Amundson
                    C O’Neal / Lopez

                    There are two schools of thought going into the draft for the us: franchise-caliber PG or defensive oriented wing. I would certainly explore trades to gain multiple picks (those are my digits on your caller ID melli) but failing that I would slip Sarver several of Gob’s Forget-Me-Nows and try to purchase an additional pick in the (Nola perhaps? One of Minny’s two late firsts… ANSWER THE PHONE MELLI!).

                    What franchise-caliber PGs are available? Jonny Flynn and Eric Maynor are the only two candidates of the remaining first rounders (not a fan of Teague, I know Seth hates him but I think Collison will make a solid backup but he‘s not a franchise guy). There are clearly things to like about Flynn and Mayor, but they both have limitations that concern me.

                    The PG I was most interested for this team was Nick Calathes - maybe not a franchise guy but someone that would work for our uptempo style. But dude went to Greece so he’s dead to me.

                    I do like Flynn’s court vision and certainly his leadership in the Big East / NCAA tournaments was impressive. But he’s got a spotty jumper and in general he seems a bit erratic. Maynor seems to do a bit of everything well and clearly is clutch but he seems equally limited. I don’t see Dragic as a PG of the future and other than John Wall, there are very few interesting PG prospects in the 2010 draft. And at his age, how much longer can Nash contribute? Could he give a few more years like a Stockton or will he nose dive like Sam Cassell? He wants a two year extension at the moment. Can we actually get away with trading Nash?

                    Then there is the defensive-minded wing. Really there are two guys that apply to this spot: Terrence Williams and Sam Young. I like both of these guys, but it’s too early to grab Young. If I were to trade down, he’d definitely be at the top of my list. If I acquire an additional pick and go with a PG at #14 I definitely take Young. I really like Williams too, mostly for defensive reasons but his court vision is impressive too. I could probably bring Grant Hill back cheaply but dude is old (not sure about Barnes). Besides the SF slot is the easiest to fill on the floor and taking a defensive-minded wing in the lotto with a real need at PG is a little strange.

                    So where does that leave us? Failing to make a trade for an additional pick or two slightly lower picks…

                    With the 14th pick the Phoenix Suns select…Terrence Williams from the University of Louisville.

                    He rebounds tremendously well can defend three positions and has improved his range over the last year. He has good handles and has very good court vision. He won’t be expected to contribute regularly to the offense with Richardson, Amar’e, Shaq and Nash on the floor so that won’t be much of an issue. I’m not sold on Dragic being the PG of the future but playing a combo of Dragic/Barbosa/Williams should give enough pseudo-PG skills to cover for that. After selecting Williams, I’d start bribing my way into an additional pick in hopes of grabbing a PG (Maynor, Collison depending on position of pick) with my 2010 and the two 2nd rounders I have this year. If I can’t jump up for a PG I’ll probably make a play for Jeff Pendergraph in the second round (Seth keeps talking about him as a late first rounder but most mocks have him going in the bottom 2/3 of the 2nd, right?).

                    For the record, I’m thinking that Kerr will likely go with Flynn because others seem to like him way more than I do. I kind of feel like an idiot for not going PG here but I just don't trust any of 'em to not bust like I do with Williams.

                    Also apologies if this doesn't make any sense. Kinda rushing to type this up so I can finally catch my flight to St. Louis. I'll be back sometime to translate this into English for y'all.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                      GM Wetbob and the Detroit Pistons are on the clock.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                        You know the Suns need a Raja like player. TWill or Sam Young can be that. And I can see Young being selected this early. I mean they picked Robin Lopez ahead of a player like Hibbert.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          You know the Suns need a Raja like player. TWill or Sam Young can be that. And I can see Young being selected this early. I mean they picked Robin Lopez ahead of a player like Hibbert.
                          They can use a backup PG.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                            If WetBob PM's you melli, please let him know that I have formally offered Carlos Boozer to him for the number 15 pick. Thanks.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                              For the 13th Pick in the I Hate BillS PD Mock Draft , on behalf of the Indiana Pacers, duke dynamite selects Guard Ty Lawson of North Carolina.

                              Ty Lawson is the best available player in the draft. I honestly think that if this same scenario arises in the real draft, TPTB will actually go with him.
                              Similar to the "Thanks" button, can we get a "WTF???" button please?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                                Did I just not explain that? I said I felt he was the best player available. Sure, looking at our PG situation, but I was in a crunch.
                                What about him makes you think he is the BPA? What is it that he does better than others? Strengths? Weaknesses?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X