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

EARL CLARK

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

  • #76
    Re: EARL CLARK

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    Of course, the impressive thing in that clip is the amazing pass by Twill. Very few NBA players at any position could make that pass.
    Seriously. I know I'm on his jock. Passes and plays like that are why. He made some of the craftiest, clever passes I've seen in a college player ever. He tore people up on bouncers. He'd be on baseline in-bounding and bounce pass to a guy at the rim for a layup. Think about it, 2 defenders (his and cutter's) and the baseline all to thread and he pulls a bouncer right to a guy in stride for an easy 2. Sick. That's why to me he's a playmaker. He reads the floor like nobody.

    Even when he got burned he was the only one that read it. I saw a team lob in deep over him on a hard press successfully, but he was starting to get back by reading the floor before he saw his man gone. Not great, but the rest of the team had no idea what was happening till it was long over. He at least gives himself a chance even on screwups.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: EARL CLARK

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Seriously. I know I'm on his jock. Passes and plays like that are why. He made some of the craftiest, clever passes I've seen in a college player ever. He tore people up on bouncers. He'd be on baseline in-bounding and bounce pass to a guy at the rim for a layup. Think about it, 2 defenders (his and cutter's) and the baseline all to thread and he pulls a bouncer right to a guy in stride for an easy 2. Sick. That's why to me he's a playmaker. He reads the floor like nobody.

      Even when he got burned he was the only one that read it. I saw a team lob in deep over him on a hard press successfully, but he was starting to get back by reading the floor before he saw his man gone. Not great, but the rest of the team had no idea what was happening till it was long over. He at least gives himself a chance even on screwups.
      Well...DX still has us drafting him...and I'm 99 and 44/100ths percent sure that he'll be available when we send the card up to the podium.

      I'd be OK with T-Will.

      I'd be OK with Clark...Maynor...one of the guys above falling...It's going to be an easy draft to not be disappointed, but it' s going to be a hard draft to be get excited.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: EARL CLARK

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Jennings falling to 13. Good luck on that. I'd be thrilled. Pass happy PG with about 30 different passes in his bag of tricks and a lump of humility from his Euro attempt. Sounds good to me.
        Apparently, you don't follow his twitter or what he said the day of the lottery. I don't think he's been humbled at all.


        Comment


        • #79
          Re: EARL CLARK

          Originally posted by Indy View Post
          Apparently, you don't follow his twitter or what he said the day of the lottery. I don't think he's been humbled at all.
          Fill us in.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: EARL CLARK

            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
            I'm not sure any current Pacer could make that pass successfully on a consistent basis.
            Tinsley could.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: EARL CLARK

              Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
              Fill us in.




              (Thank You....I'm here all week. Tip your admins.)

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: EARL CLARK

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                Tinsley could.
                Why do you feel the need to remind me that he's still a Pacer? I'm pretty good at ignoring that fact.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: EARL CLARK

                  I believe Jennings said something along the lines of you need to play well during your first contract and then get a big, fat deal and just coast.


                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: EARL CLARK

                    As talented as Jennings is I have a hard time seeing the Pacers brass drafting him because of his personality...I think they'd rather take a more proven, less arrogant player that the fans will like on and off the court.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: EARL CLARK

                      WHO IS EARL CLARK?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: EARL CLARK

                        Originally posted by Indy View Post
                        I believe Jennings said something along the lines of you need to play well during your first contract and then get a big, fat deal and just coast.
                        could you be kind enough to provide us with some proof?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: EARL CLARK

                          Originally posted by flox View Post
                          could you be kind enough to provide us with some proof?
                          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...3&postcount=63


                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: EARL CLARK

                            Interestingly his stock started to fall right after those twitter updates. Honestly I don't think it's THAT big of a deal. It shows immaturity which is true for the majority of the prospects. No big news.

                            To me, there are more serious red flags in his GAME more so than the twitter updates. But still, would I be happy with him at 13? Possibly.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: EARL CLARK

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              ZERO PF SKILLS. None. Not any, not a post game, not a quality rebounding game. So a heavier, tall pure SF that earlier in the year was even out at SG for Pitino.

                              Awesome.

                              Size is not the issue, motivation is not the issue. Between the ears is the issue. I simply think he is going to be really lost on most plays and it's going to drag down the rest of the team on both ends, and I don't just mean in his rookie year.

                              Look, you watch the games off ball and this is what you see - TWill and he go to opposite wings on zone defense. TWill then has to constantly yell over to Clark to keep him in position and aware of zone overloads, backcuts, etc. TWill is running his floor spot AND Clark's.

                              This happens EVERY GAME, not just sometimes. Clark is not a freshman at this point either, nor is Pitino new or is this early in the year.

                              On top of this you also see him burned by these same cuts and overloads.


                              At the other end he was great at being a one on one guy, the person you cleared out for. At his size he could pull up (silky) or drive for lane runners pretty well. He wasn't really Mr. Post though and at his size that's odd.

                              Again these are all the factors that drew me to TWill so much, he does all of those things except shoot the consistant jumper. I do think NBA guys need to be able to hit a jump shot and Clark having that is a good first step. My concern is that he won't add to this once he gets to the NBA.

                              He didn't make big strides in college so I don't see reason to expect that to suddenly change. Again counter with TWill who drastically improved his mental game. So the opportunity was there, he just failed to get it. I don't question his work ethic or desire one bit however. He never played lazy, just lost.
                              I admit that I'm a total "read what others think of Players to form my own opinion" type of guy when it comes to figuring out who to draft ( only because I do not have the Basketball Knowledge to catch the little details that count ), but so far, Seth has done the best job of convincing me ( this dating back to his introduction of TWill way back when ) why I would prefer to stay away from Clark at the 13th pick. Although it's a plus that he has the "potential" to be a better player (as I mentioned before ), the simple hope that he could ( with the proper guidance ) become the PF that we all pray he can be is not good enough for me.

                              It would totally be different if Clark had the "prerequisite" PF skills that we are looking for that we can "grow" into a SF....but it's not....it's the opposite when it comes to Clark.

                              To me, Clark does fill that need for becoming way more athletic then we are now and does have the big "P" attached to him....but other then that...I'd rather not gamble on him. Proverbially, I'm okay with trying to "hit a single or double" as opposed to "swinging for the fences" ( aka the whole "Bayless Vs. BRush" debate ) since we are in a position where we must infuse some talent that not only can contribute immediately but fit a need for us. I would much rather go for someone like Lawson ( assuming that we trade Ford and resign Jack ) or Henderson/TWill at the 13th pick and then try to fill our PF needs with an additional pick with someone like Pendergraph or ( even ) Hansborough or through some trade.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 06-04-2009, 05:44 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: EARL CLARK

                                Originally posted by Indy View Post
                                Apparently, you don't follow his twitter or what he said the day of the lottery. I don't think he's been humbled at all.
                                I am not saying your wrong about his character but others have seen a different side of him.

                                Jonathan Givony - President
                                May 13, 2009

                                Draftexpress
                                Gone is the brash, arrogant teenager with the Kid ’N Play style flat-top who dominated the ball in absolute fashion and looked first and foremost for his own shot, his stats and the ultimate high-light play. In his place is a much more mature, respectful young man, always cheering on his teammates, showing great body language and painstakingly trying to do what his coaches ask of him, almost to a fault at times.
                                http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...-in-Rome-3212/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X