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

  • #76
    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 am afraid of who Melli is going to take at 18. The Sixers and Hawks NEED outside shooting. BAD. I think the Hawks could go with a center at this point in 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


    • #77
      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 pacergod2 View Post
      I am afraid of who Melli is going to take at 18. The Sixers and Hawks NEED outside shooting. BAD. I think the Hawks could go with a center at this point in the draft.
      It's not going to be a post player, I can tell you that much.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

        A look into the Minnesota draft room as we wait for Philly to pick...

        G - Randy Foye, Sebastien Telfair, Bobby Brown?
        Wing - Mike Miller, Corey Brewer, Ryan Gomes, Brian Cardinal
        Post - Al Jefferson, Kevin Love, Hasheem Thabeet, Craig Smith, Mark Madsen

        Chad Ford's Best Available (That I'm considering):

        #8 Jonny Flynn
        #13 Jeff Teague
        #17 Eric Maynor
        #18 Austin Daye
        #27 Sam Young

        The obvious holes on my roster are for guards, and, luckily, the guards just happen to be the best players available right now. At PG it comes down to a choice between Flynn and Maynor. I don't think the fans really want to bring in another scoring guard and try to make them play PG like we did with Foye. Flynn and Maynor are both intriguing players. I think Flynn compares favorably to Aaron Brooks, TJ Ford, and other small PG's because he's a better, and more willing, passer. I love his leadership ability and killer instinct. It could be just what's lacking on this roster. Maynor is bigger and both a better shooter and defender, but doesn't have the handle, quickness, or passing ability of Flynn. He's shown some good leadership ability.

        The sleepers are Austin Daye and Sam Young. Daye has the potential to be a top 10 SF. I'm a bit concerned about his motor. Young is just the opposite of Daye. He's got all the heart and desire you could ever want, but there are some questions about whether or not he has the athleticism to play at a high level in the NBA. He's also a bit of a reach at this point.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • #79
          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 count55 View Post
          It's not my call, but I would've offered 16 & 26 to move up to early 'teens.
          As the Charlotte GM picking #12, I would have accepted this offer.

          Melli, I think I can safely say that we're all enjoying your version of this year's mock draft: thank you!

          While opening a mock draft to trades might be akin to opening a can of worms, however, may I suggest a modification for next year; namely, that:

          1) Prior to the mock draft, the board (voting GMs, with Commish getting veto power) decide on a list of current NBA players who are likely to be traded during the real draft or ensuing off-season, and

          2) GMs are allowed to PM one another to propose trades involving current picks, one pick from the following year and/or a player from the approved list. (Another really cool addition would be if all trade proposals were published after the mock draft was completed.)

          I'm sensitive to creating more "work" for you than you want to take on, but I think some ability to trade would make things more thought-provoking as well as more enjoyable for all.
          Last edited by DrFife; 05-27-2009, 11:37 AM.


          "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

          - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

          Comment


          • #80
            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 DrFife View Post
            As the Charlotte GM picking #12, I would have accepted this offer.

            Melli, I think I can safely say that we're all enjoying your version of this year's mock draft: thank you!

            While opening a mock draft to trades might be akin to opening a can of worms, however, may I suggest a modification for next year; namely, that:

            1) Prior to the mock draft, the board (voting GMs, with Commish getting veto power) decide on a list of current NBA players who are likely to be traded during the real draft or ensuing off-season, and

            2) GMs are allowed to PM one another to propose trades involving current picks, one pick from the following year and/or a player from the approved list. (Another really cool addition would be if all trade proposals were published after the mock draft was completed.)

            I'm sensitive to creating more "work" for you than you want to take on, but I think some ability to trade would make things more thought-provoking as well as more enjoyable for all.
            I'm down with this.
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment


            • #81
              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 would have gladly dropped to 16 and 26 for #14.

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              As long as you like that Iverson style of PG without the scoring/foul drawing ability then he's your guy. Get 4 defense only guys to play next to him and jury rig your 24 second clock so it always looks like there are only 5 seconds left and you might see something productive out of him.
              As a backup in the league, could he really be worse than Marcus Banks? Not likely.

              Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
              I think Collison will make a fine backup PG. I'm thinking he'll have a career very similar to Jacques Vaughan.
              Kind of what I'm thinking.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                As it turned out, I didn't have to trade up...I got the guy I wanted all along.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                  Your draft will be a very good one after getting Thabeet and one of the guards listed. Then having another pick at 28 on top of that. I think Minny could do a TON to get better in this draft. Unfortunately, they have a log jam of young players and not enough time for all of them.

                  I could see Minny really wheeling and dealing this draft. Assuming their new GM, David Kahn, gets working the phones ASAP. They have young talent and picks that could increase their overall talent level. I could see them trading 18 and 28 along with salary cap relief to another team to get in the top ten.

                  Imagine Minny giving up #6, #18, and #28 (or Ryan Gomes) for the number two pick to take Rubio. This would probably entice Memphis enough to forego the buyout issues and Minneapolis is a much bigger market. Memphis would still get a solid player with a lot of upside at 6. They need to fill out their roster with at least 5 guys and upwards of 7 so it would keep them well below the salary cap level to re-sign Gay and Mayo, Gasol, Arthur and Conley.
                  "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


                  • #84
                    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 gents. The GM of the 76ers made this decision during his lunch break, dedicating valuable work time to playing Minesweeper and creating a whole slew of Outlook rules that will never be utilized.

                    With the 17th pick in the PD Not Mock Draft, the Philadelphia 76ers select Eric Maynor of Virginia Commonwealth University.

                    This was a difficult decision for a team desperate for three point shooting, but our more pressing concerns right now are our lack of a coach, the potential loss of our floor leader (and team captain), and the lack of an identity that comes with such uncertainty. After the blockbuster off-season pick-up of Elton Brand, we now have two players locked up long-term in Brand and Iguodala (until 2012-2013). We have some young men up front in Sam Dalembert, Marreese Speights and even Jason Smith who can man the paint - even if Dalembert had an extremely disappointing season (especially at his salary) - and plenty of wings that can hit the mid-range shot and slash, including Iguodala and Willie Green (another guy who took a bit of a step back). Thaddeus Young, who Philly fans are quite fond of, can play a little of both. Our weaknesses clearly lie with our perimeter players. And while I like Louis Williams very much, I see him as more of a scorer (a small SG, combo-guard at best) than a playmaker. If Andre Miller bolts for free agency, then we'll be stuck starting Royal Ivey, who's serviceable as a backup but definitely not ready for primetime.

                    Ultimately, the decision to take Maynor (a guy better known for his short game than his long) is about the future but also about the present. Does Maynor have room to grow? Who can say for sure. We like what we've seen from him so far. More importantly for this franchise, we need an insurance plan in case we don't resign Miller (who's also getting up there in age) and someone who will, by season's end, hopefully be able to contribute in what we hope will be a long playoff run with a healthy roster. It doesn't hurt that he is among the best players available at this point in the draft, and certainly among the best true point guard prospects. (Wayne Ellington and Jeff Teague also both received a hard look).

                    Plus, we can get shooting from someone else. Kareem Rush wasn't that great for us, but I hear this Kyle Korver guy might be free again. Give the City of Brotherly Love a second chance?

                    Disclaimer: Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I should also say that this is a best guess based on what little I've seen of college basketball (two BC games and the championship) and the 76ers (only the games against the Pacers and in the playoffs). Let the criticism begin!
                    Last edited by LG33; 05-27-2009, 01:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      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 love this pick as long as you guys re-sign Andre Miller. Also, I could see the Sixers trading a few of their guys like Willie Green and Reggie Evans for a shooter who would be in the top 8 of their rotation with Young and Speights. Maybe Ben Gordon or mike Miller types come to mind.
                      "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


                      • #86
                        Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                        With the 18th pick, the Minnesota Timberwolves select Jonny Flynn, point guard from Syracuse University.

                        After holding out breath through the waiting time on Philly's pick, we're thrilled to get our #1 choice.

                        While there are legitmate questions about Flynn's size and ability to be an above average defender, there are no questions about his tenacity and leadership ability. I think he has Aaron Brooks+ potential. If Flynn can become a truly talented starting PG, we're looking like a talented young team.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          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 personally think Maynor would fit better with the Wolves. Soley because Foye is an undersized SG and Telfair is another undersized PG. Add to that Jefferson being undersized at C and Mike Miller slow at SF, this team will continually have bad matchups on the defensive end.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread

                            Wow I'm surprised no one took Flynn yet.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              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
                              I personally think Maynor would fit better with the Wolves. Soley because Foye is an undersized SG and Telfair is another undersized PG. Add to that Jefferson being undersized at C and Mike Miller slow at SF, this team will continually have bad matchups on the defensive end.
                              You're right about the defensive liabilities. However, I do have Thabeet now so that should make up for a little bit. At this point I'm just grabbing as much talent as possible.

                              Rommie and the Atlanta Hawks are up with the 19th pick.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                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
                                I personally think Maynor would fit better with the Wolves. Soley because Foye is an undersized SG and Telfair is another undersized PG. Add to that Jefferson being undersized at C and Mike Miller slow at SF, this team will continually have bad matchups on the defensive end.
                                Hmmm.......I'm not sure, but I think that you're suggesting that the TWolves are.....undersized?
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X