Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

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

  • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    He is not a great defender. He reads for steals alright and defends the defensive glass well due to his rebounding, but he can be beat more often than should be acceptable.
    Is this a general problem or is it because he's defending smaller and quicker PGs?
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I wouldn't put it past this FO to draft him.

      I'm guessing that the reason Aldrich is ranked so high on many Mock Drafts is because he's one of the better ( more polished ) 7 foot "True Centers" that will be available to draft. He's ranked high only because of his size and the position he plays...not because he's really any better then anyone else in the draft.
      I know.


      I liked him coming into the season, back when Tbird and I were both saying how much we loved the PF/C depth of this draft. But he's been a real dud for me, I lost interest in a hurry.

      I was iffy on taking Hibbert, a kid I loved as a college player, and he looked much more ready for NBA speed than Aldrich does. There's no denying his size, but he never makes some quick or polished move that you think "oh, that's an NBA play right there". He's game is ultra-NCAA level to me.

      I mean by now we should all know that you can have great college success and not have the kinds of moves that apply at the NBA level.


      A lot of times I think about what a known NBA player would be doing to these kids in a college game and that brings it back to reality. Noah would blow up Aldrich, and that's the kind of guy he's going to face regularly.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
        Is this a general problem or is it because he's defending smaller and quicker PGs?
        Yeah, I thought about that because of Battle being so quick, but I think he is at times slow to cover ground.

        Hard to always be sure do to the NCAA defensive styles which are loaded with "man" variations to help out. Turner might have been just driving his man toward help, but that help was pretty close to the rim at times.

        I don't think he always played his spacing well, didn't always read the plays ahead of time to deny floor position. I think if it was just the speed thing it wouldn't bother me at all. I can live with Flynn or Lawson blowing past him, but not Hinrich just because he didn't get out in front of them.

        I still rate him at the top guy, so it's not a deal breaker. I've seen some great defensive players in the PF class, but I'm not sold on any of the PG and wing players as defenders this year. Good, but not ace guys you sic after the hot guys to slow them down.

        Lot more offense than defense in this draft, outside of a guys like Ndiaye and Vanardo. Even Wes Johnson who has nice reach isn't nearly as good on defense as he is on offense.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I don't buy that when we're talking a 30 spot drop in draft projection. That's a huge difference.
          Well we'll let their careers settle the argument. We'll know someday.

          All it takes is Bird drafting him at 15 to make him a top 15 pick, thus proving that's where he was meant to be drafted.


          Have you been watching Luke play? Why don't you think he's rated higher?

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Harangody is a full two inches shorter than Tyler, doesn't have anywhere near the physique, and measured out as a slightly worse athlete across the board. He's also nowhere near the efficient scorer that Tyler was at UNC due to an inferior FG% and his lack of God-like foul-drawing ability (which Tyler has brought with him to the NBA, btw).

            With all of that said, Harangody is still a very productive NCAA player and I fully expect he'll be 1st round NBA draft pick who sticks around for many years.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Speed - all good points and not ones I really disagree with other than I think that Tyler's ability to defend the PF position in the NBA is wildly overrated as well.

              My main comparison is that I think Tyler and Luke have offensive games that are similar, and that in both cases it doesn't translate well to the NBA.

              If I were in JOB's spot I would have had Tyler defending slightly bigger SFs more often than playing PF. I even think you could rough teams up a bit if you went Roy-Josh-Tyler-DJones, and you could have Ford play PG with that group for the main scoring.

              As you say, Luke can't play down a position, he's not quick enough. But even though I would use Tyler vs SFs, I wouldn't have gone for a PF prospect who was so borderline at truly impacting the game like a PF. That has always been my main issue with both of these kids as NBA prospects.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                You would think so, yet we saw it again this past draft with Thabeet going ahead of Harden and Evans
                Well that's true. It almost felt like they got bullied into that pick because it was the "right one". Thabeet had been ranked high for so long that you just had to do it.

                I mean I wouldn't have, even if he slipped to 8th or something, but it felt like an almost obligation pick.

                It's also why I hate teams sticking to need no matter what. Rubio was a risk because of his availability, but instead if you take Evans and Flynn you can trade one of them during draft night pretty easily, or at the very least within a few months of the season.

                It just normally happens that other than 7' guys there is usually someone close to your pick no matter what your need is.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post

                  If they played each other one on one, I'd bet Hansbrough would kill him.
                  They did play, and Tyler dropped 34 points on him and ND.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Wall: 17.1 PPG; 6.6 assists; 3.7 rebounds; 2.1 steals. Shooting 38 percent from 3-point range and averaging nearly 34 minutes per game, more than anyone else on Kentucky's roster.

                    Turner: 18.4 PPG; 9.9 rebounds; 5.5 assists; 1.7 steals. Shooting 55 percent from the field.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      I'd take John Wall over Evan Turner 10/10 times over and over again. Simply because John Wall's ceiling is Isiah Thomas/Allen Iverson good. Evan Turner's is Chris Mullin/Brandon Roy good. Both great, but Wall could be alot better than Evan Turner, potentially speaking.
                      "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                      Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        If Wall and Turner are in the same tier you take Wall because he's a point guard, and we need a good point guard more than another wing.

                        I would take Wall even if Turner could be a point guard.

                        We need a point guard that's quick and can stop penetration and I've heard Gary Payton comparisons as to how good Wall can be on defense.

                        If we have the 2nd pick in the draft it would still be hard to take Turner. We need a PF that can play the Dale Davis part. Actually we might get someone that could play the JO part which would be better yet because he would be perfect to split the time between Hans and Hibbert.

                        Don't know if we could pass on Turner though.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Kenrick Perkins. I would do anything for Kendrick Perkins. Dale Davis 2.0.
                          "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                          Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Wall: 17.1 PPG; 6.6 assists; 3.7 rebounds; 2.1 steals. Shooting 38 percent from 3-point range and averaging nearly 34 minutes per game, more than anyone else on Kentucky's roster.

                            Turner: 18.4 PPG; 9.9 rebounds; 5.5 assists; 1.7 steals. Shooting 55 percent from the field.
                            Evan Turner's stat line from his freshman year:
                            8.5 PPG, 4.4 Rebounds, 2.6 assists, 2.7 turnovers, 47% FG, 69% FT, 1.3 steals...in 27 minutes. Imagine Wall's numbers if he stayed three years at UK.

                            I'm not saying you guys are wrong for liking Turner over Wall (I love Turner and would be tickled to death with him at #2), but Wall is going to go #1.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              John's numbers are dropping as the season goes on too. I am sure the kid is good, but I think the hype is way out of whack with this guy.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                If Wall and Turner go 1 and 2 and a pf goes at 3 and the Pacers are at 4 do we take Wesley
                                Johnson? He is very athletic and obviously can score. Rautins from Syracuse looks good
                                as a guard.
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X