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

Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Discussion

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

  • #76
    Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    Email from the Pacers highlights Jennings, Blair, Henderson, and Hansbrough. I found that odd they would chose those 4. Am I on to something? No other players mentioned directly in the email. It's under "player features". Maybe I'm reaching.
    Larry said there'd be a PG at #13 and with Jennings, he might be gone by then... so I think it's coincidence.

    I think Blair and Henderson are 2 of the four.

    Third maybe Maynor or Lawson?

    Fourth could be Jennings.

    Bird was complimentary of a lot of players... Thabeet, Blair, Tyler, Flynn, Jennings...


    If he likes 3 that will be there at #13 and would be willing to take any... we could trade back to #15 or #16 (if we condition that #13 won't be used on one of our 3).

    If Chicago loves a guy at #13, I'm liking the idea of trading back and picking up a 2nd 1st rounder. It's a steep price, but Chicago might really want their guy.

    I'm excited to think that similar to the '06 draft, someone might drop. Not sure that they'll drop all the way to #13.

    Though a 2nd pick could be spent on Maynor or Lawson and the #13 on Hans/Blair.

    Players not mentioned by Bird: Johnson, Clark, Daye, Williams... did he mention Teague?
    Last edited by MyFavMartin; 06-22-2009, 10:27 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

      I'd love to trade back to 16 and 26 if we could. It's not too steep if Chicago really thinks that the guy at 13 can take them to the next level. If there aren't players involved they're not losing much.

      Jennings signed for $1 million, but I think it was a 2 year deal. But yeah that was cool of him.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

        In watching the Channel 13 video on Bird I could swear I saw Austin at the workouts. That seemed interesting to me.
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Does it depress anyone besides me that we can't afford to trade up to #5 even though Bird wants to?
          I would make a deal including the 13th pick and Jeff Foster to the Wizards for the 5th pick.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
            Speaking of the Pacers email, if you click on the link to the Brandon Jennings feature, you learn that Jennings donated $50,000 to a relief fund for a town that was devastated by an earthquake while he was playing there. I don't know how much he made, but it's cool to see a guy getting involved with local causes even though he knew he was only going to be there for one year.
            Says a lot about his character. He was asked about it in an interview and he said it was a lot of money for someone his age to donate but that he didn't hesitate because it was for a good cause. Being from Cali he can relate to being in the middle of an earthquake so he wanted to help the victims in any way he could.
            2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

              Originally posted by ABADays View Post
              In watching the Channel 13 video on Bird I could swear I saw Austin at the workouts. That seemed interesting to me.

              He was hanging around during the last couple of workouts...Don't really know what for though.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Did Bird specifically say that, or are you getting that from the generic "I prefer 3/4 year guys" comment?

                If it's the latter, don't you think that's a stretch to make that kind of a comment? If it's the former, what exactly did he say?
                Stretch? "I like 4 year guys. I don't like to take 1 year guys".

                I'm saying that I disagree on a blanket view that more NCAA time = better/more polished/mature or whatever reason he prefers those guys. I used Maynor as an example along with many others. Why so touchy, there's no stretch there at all nor any effort to imply one.



                I think Blair and Henderson are 2 of the four.

                Third maybe Maynor or Lawson?

                Fourth could be Jennings.
                I agree on that guess now that he mentioned a wing and has added that he feels certain 3 will be there.
                PG - Maynor
                Wing - Henderson
                Big - Blair
                He expects them to be there. He hopes Jennings for the 4th. Just based on how he responded to questions in general. His noting of Euro practices being very hard and Jennings playing against men last year implies a level of respect I think. And Jennings is a dynamic passer, well above the other PG options in that regard.


                I like that Bird has traveled to many workouts and said he doesn't put too much stock in them, especially just one workout.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                  (via Conrad Brunner's blog)

                  Taking a (long) shot at Bird's prospect quartet

                  Jun 22, 2009
                  Larry Bird said the Pacers have narrowed their focus to a group of four players they expect to be available at the No. 13 pick in Thursday's NBA Draft. But he isn't naming names.

                  "There'll be a point guard there, there'll be a big there and there'll be a wing there, I guarantee you," he said. "And we need all three."

                  Bird did say all four worked out for the Pacers. So let's see if we can sort this out from the information available.

                  Deep, talented point guard crop

                  Of the point guards, it's likely Eric Maynor (Virginia Commonwealth), Ty Lawson (North Carolina), Jeff Teague (Wake Forest) and possibly Brandon Jennings (Italy) will be on the board, although Jrue Holiday (UCLA) might slip.

                  During Monday afternoon's media briefing, Bird reinforced his preference for experience, which would tend to rule out Jennings or Holiday.

                  "If you like speed, there's a lot of speed, there's guys that can score, there's guys that can get the ball in people's hands at the right time," Bird said, analyzing the point-guard crop. "Ty Lawson's not big but he's got a lot of heart. Take Jonny Flynn (of Syracuse, a likely top-10 choice), there's one of the toughest guys you'll ever see at his size at point guard and makes a lot of things happen.

                  "They have a lot of skill in different areas. There's some guys that can defend very well. But the key is there's point guards there that will make the right play, there's one's there that can score, so it's according to what you're looking for."

                  And what might Bird be looking for?

                  "I'm looking for Chris Paul," he said with a smile, "but I don't know if there's one there. You can go right down the list, every one of them has some great qualities."


                  Blair, Hansbrough top list of big men
                  As for big men, Bird named center B.J. Mullens of Ohio State as well as power forwards DeJuan Blair of Pitt and Tyler Hansbrough of North Carolina. Mullens has just one year of college experiences, so cross him off the list.

                  Both Blair (too short) and Hansbrough (not athletic enough) have perceived flaws but Bird likes both. Blair compensates for his 6-6½ stature with a 7-3 wingspan. Hansbrough is a tireless worker who brings an impeccable college record.

                  "(Blair) is able to create space down low," Bird said. "He's played against great competition. He played against (UConn center Hasheem) Thabeet, which is 7-3, and held his own pretty well.

                  "We have concerns on defense on a lot of these guys but we know over time they'll get better. Blair's the type of player who's going to be able to help any team he goes to."

                  Bird pointed out occasional comparisons made between Hansbrough and Jeff Foster.

                  "They compare him to Jeff Foster but I've never seen Jeff average 20 points a game and shoot 84 percent from the line," he said. "They talk about them because they both play their hearts out every game and I like them type of players, no question about it.

                  "They've picked on Tyler for four years but all he's ever done is won. I like to watch him play. I like how he worked out here and hopefully he's in that group, also."


                  Wing prospects more nebulous
                  Bird said he will wait until after the draft to decide whether to pick up the option on Marquis Daniels' contract, which indicates two things: the seriousness of the need of someone to back up Danny Granger and Brandon Rush, and the uncertainty a qualified prospect might be available.

                  The Pacers worked out four wings: Gerald Henderson (Duke), James Johnson (Wake Forest), Chase Budinger (Wake Forest) and Sam Young (Pitt). All have experience. Henderson is an exceptional athlete who also has untapped potential. Johnson does everything well. Budinger is a big-time shooter. Young is a tough defender with an improved perimeter game.

                  Henderson seems to stand out from this group, although the others would be strong candidates should the Pacers trade back to pick up multiple lower picks.


                  So, who's it going to be?
                  Seeing the subhed above, you might have skipped right past all the cogent analysis above to get to the bottom line. Can't blame you.

                  The thing is, nobody's talking. The best I can do is an educated guess.

                  So my purely speculative stab at the four players in the Pacers' draft-night focus group are: Maynor, Lawson, Hansbrough and Henderson.
                  http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700038986
                  Last edited by Trophy; 06-22-2009, 11:21 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                    Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                    He was hanging around during the last couple of workouts...Don't really know what for though.
                    I think he is just working out with the team. He may try for a spot again. I'm not saying he'll make it, but you never know.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTFGj...eature=related

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBNUPjKi8XA&NR=1

                      NEED I SAY MORE?
                      Last edited by LOCBLB613; 06-22-2009, 11:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                        last link but dont 4get melo went to oak hill and didnt score 63
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBNUPjKi8XA&NR=1

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                          After watching the press conference twice, here is my take on it:

                          James Johnson is still the main target and here is why.

                          Bird will not draft a traditional big because I believe he will look at free agency or trades for that. He says he has some defensive concerns about Blair and Hansbrough (and also Mullens but I don't think we should even discuss the possibility of drafting Mullens at this point.). His comments reminded me of how he spoke about Darrel Arthur last year. He praised and praised him... And we didn't draft him so I'm pretty sure we are not drafting Hansbrough at 13.

                          Then who are the 3-4 guys we are looking at? I think Johnson is the "big" guy even though he is not a traditional big.

                          We are definitely NOT looking at either Clark or TWill, they are just not in the plans. So the "wing" could be either Daye or Budinger because Bird said he can "guarantee" that those players will be there at 13. Obviously we are not looking at Henderson cause nobody would be surprised if he gets picked ahead of us. Maybe he is the "fourth" guy that he is not sure if he will fall or not.

                          I believe that if Holiday, Flynn or Jennings fall to us, Bird will make a trade. After watching the video I strongly felt that he is not planning to keep any of them. I also do believe a trade will be made by Bird in the draft day. In terms of point guards, it leaves us with Maynor, Lawson and Teague. From what I understood, I don't think Bird is very high on Maynor. I feel like Lawson is the leading candidate in that position. Though I was a little surprised when Bird said "there is a lot of speed, if you like speed." I don't know, it just seemed like he wasn't very high on "speed." He sounded like "oh there are some little fast guys who can run and can't do much else." Then he joked about wanting a Chris Paul. Point guard issue to me is complicated. I really don't know what Bird is thinking but I still DON'T think we will draft a point guard on Thursday. But we'll see.

                          To me, the 4 guys would look like this:

                          PG: Lawson/Teague
                          WING: Budinger/Daye
                          BIG: Johnson
                          4TH: Henderson

                          After watching the press conference video, I still feel like Bird wants to draft James Johnson. And trading down is a very strong possibility.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                            Originally posted by LOCBLB613 View Post
                            Woo Hoo a lefty!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                              I really like Brandon Jennings.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Larry Bird - Live Draft Chat Today

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Well, a few of the PF prospects that were supposed to be in this year's draft look intriguing (Brackins, Monroe, Ed Davis, Patterson, Lawal, Sanders, Varnado). Add that to the crop of promising soon-to-be-freshman bigs (Favors, Henson, Cousins) and the big international prospect (Motiejunas) and it shapes up to be a pretty decent looking draft on paper. Now, not all those guys will declare, but it certainly is more promising than the DeJuan Blairs and Tyler Hansbroughs of the world.

                                As to where we get that information from...different draft websites (DraftExpress, NBADraft.net) have early 2010 mocks up, but mostly I just go off of who didn't declare and the major recruits coming into college next season.
                                Yep. Right off the bat you definitely have big time guys in Patterson (top 5 I'd guess with the KY situation) and Monroe who smartly stayed. Aldrich has a good shot to improve his stock at KS, Brackins, and perhaps Sanders (just watched him tear up GMason while watching Maynor with Gnome tonight). Lawal and Oglivy were early season prospects for this draft before returning to school too.

                                Let's not forget my 2 personal faves and guys that I expect to be way up the prospect board next summer, the L'ville twin towers of Jennings and Samuels who will be the primary focus of that team next year. Both were outstanding threats this past season even as freshman. Great post footwork, smooth scoring at the rim, solid rebounding.

                                Right now I only like Patterson more than either of them, but the Pacers aren't likely to have a shot at Patterson based on how he looked this year. What I don't get is WTF was Meeks thinking by passing up a shot to return with Patterson and Calipari considering where he is slated to go in this draft.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X