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

    Detroit and Golden State both pull off upsets tonight. We remain at fifth, but only three games back of the Warriors for a bottom-three record.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      The punches allegedly occurred on the floor when the students were rushing the court, not in the locker room.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
        The punches allegedly occurred on the floor when the students were rushing the court, not in the locker room.
        There is a lot of rumors going on about him I think you are right I found this video but I don't see anything, so who knows?



        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          Detroit and Golden State both pull off upsets tonight. We remain at fifth, but only three games back of the Warriors for a bottom-three record.
          I find it very unlikely the Pacers will end up in the top three based on record. The most likely scenario is between 4-6. Now the lottery could bump the Pacers up, but based on record that is unlikely.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by owl View Post
            I find it very unlikely the Pacers will end up in the top three based on record. The most likely scenario is between 4-6. Now the lottery could bump the Pacers up, but based on record that is unlikely.
            3 is highly plausible. The Pacers won't win more than 7 games the rest of the way. Golden State has a significantly easier schedule the rest of the way. 4 seems like the worst case scenario.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              3 is highly plausible. The Pacers won't win more than 7 games the rest of the way. Golden State has a significantly easier schedule the rest of the way. 4 seems like the worst case scenario.
              I did a quick glance of the schedule and I could see them winning 11 games pretty easily, actually. That's not reaching for any victories either really.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...name=nba_draft

                The Midrange Game
                Posted by Chad Ford

                # For those of you waiting for Georgia Tech's Derrick Favors to have his breakout game, that finally happened against Maryland on Saturday. Favors had 21 points and 18 rebounds (both career highs) in a disappointing loss.

                A few more games like that and Favors could move himself quickly back up to the No. 2 spot on our Big Board.


                # Texas may be a mess on the court, but more and more GMs are touting Avery Bradley as a potential lottery pick this year. Bradley got off to a tough start at Texas and is still inconsistent, but he's having more big games of late.

                GMs believe he may be the best guard defender in the country and they feel he has the potential to be an explosive scorer. But can he be a point guard? Most feel he won't be a lead guard, but given all the other things he does well, they're not sure it matters.

                # VCU's Larry Sanders has really hit his stride in conference play of late. This week, Sanders had a 29-point, 13-rebound, 5-block performance against Drexel. He then followed it up with a 15-point, 9-rebound performance against Akron in just 20 minutes of play.

                Sanders has stayed in virtually the exact same ranking all season; he's fluctuated between 16 and 22 on our Big Board.

                # Oklahoma's Willie Warren continues to free-fall down the Big Board. He's currently struggling with a case of mono, though that's not why he continues to slide. As more details emerge about Warren and how difficult he's been this year, the more NBA teams are running away. It's one thing to have a bad season. But Warren's season has been catastrophic.

                Still, given his poor relationship with coach Jeff Capel, NBA scouts expect him to declare for this year's draft. When he does, teams are likely to warm up to him a bit. In a draft that's very weak on talent at the 1, Warren is one of the few players capable of playing that position in the pros.

                # Don't sleep on BYU's Jimmer Fredette as a potential draft candidate this year. If he were playing at Duke, he'd be mentioned as a potential player of the year candidate. Much like Duke's own Jon Scheyer, he's not the greatest athlete in the world, but he's tough, can really see the floor and he shoots the lights out.

                "He's really tough and he's a fearless kid," one GM said. "He's going to lead a team. I wish he was a little bit better athlete, but I can't name five better point guards in this draft. He'll find a way to do it at the next level."
                -----------------------------------------------

                Favors in front of Turner? Wow! Some people must really think Favors is gonna be good. I think that game might move Favors back in front of Cousins in a lot of eyes. I think it does for me.

                However, we will see how the season plays out.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  A couple of pages ago I said X Henry needed a miracle run of great games to save his draft prospects this year. Hmm, seems like he's started that process. Can he keep it up, and where has this been all season (or is it the competition that's helping?)


                  Robinson's stock has to climb in good conference wins vs top ranked teams.



                  I have the Sanders vs Drexel game on tape, not yet watched though.


                  I didn't get the GaTech vs Maryland game on Tivo which sucks.


                  Patterson remains my target for this draft. He plays a natural true PF next to Cousins, and we already have Roy.

                  Monroe is interesting and I do like him, but I wonder how he works with the current roster. If he was more power like Patterson I'd like him more. Good agility and size though, solid top 10 pick to me.



                  Favors ahead of Turner - only if Favors keeps it up (doubtful) and only because size sells. Turner IS ready now, Favors will need time no matter how he finishes the year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
                    I don't see how Aminu is going to play PF at the pro level. He's wing sized; 6'8"; 215 lbs.
                    Aminu is 100% pure SF, with tinges of PF in his game.

                    Lawal is his twin, but almost pure PF. The risk for him is size, but he's got a fantastic game of NBA applicable skills. His post footwork is exceptional, he's got lots of scoring moves from there or even stepping away from the rim, and he's good at leveraging inside.

                    You watch them in the same game and it's weird how alike yet SF-PF different they are.

                    I worry a little about height in the NBA, but wingspan and style help a lot. Blair is 6'6" I think, but great reach and leverage have him leading the rookies in rebounding.

                    Hops, reach, close-out quickness, lateral quickness...there's a lot of ways to undermine someone else's height advantage. Just ask Rik Smits.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Regarding Turner:

                      Nice all around player and a guy you'd be happy as heck with with a #4 or #5 pick. He'll definitely help a team out, but he's not the type of guy you like spending a top 2 pick on.

                      If you had to do it (if there's just nothing else around), then sure, do it. But at the NBA level, he's just good (not great athletically) for a SG. He doesn't have great size for a SF. He really needs to work on his shooting stroke. He pretty much has the ball all the time, which sort of inflates his assist numbers. Gotta give him props for rebounding the ball that well at the SF position, though.

                      The Oden/Durant comparison to he and Wall just isn't all that applicable. Durant himself is a physical freak. For a guy who plays a game of a classic 6'6"-6'7" SF, he just happens to be 6'9" with more length and wingspan than a lot of centers. He's a freak. Arguably more of a freak than Oden was back in the day. The theory behind taking Oden #1 was that he was the best defensive bigman to come into the league since Bill Russell. And well, everyone says defense wins, right?

                      I wouldn't have a problem with taking Turner #2 if I absolutely had to, but realize he's not standard #2 pick "value". He's more of a sure thing, but he's not your ideal guy there. There's no way I'd take Turner over Wall, and that's coming from someone whose team already has Stephen Curry.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        I don't see how playing two guys who are considered PF/C's together is a problem. Or should I ask the Lakers how that works. Must be a bad thing if the Lakers are doing it.

                        Putting a 6'11" Monroe or Cousins with Hibbert. Are you kidding me!?!?! The one thing I would like to see out of Monroe is what he looks like playing with a Center. He mans both the PF and C spot for that Georgetown team. With Cousins, can he hit a consistent 10-12 footer? I have really only seen him effective in a back to the basket game (which I really like), but a good center can hit that shot to help round his game out/be more effective. But I am really high on both of those guys. I have seen two games with Favors and I am not that impressed to use our pick on him at this point. Physically very gifted, don't know that he translates his dominant athleticism to the court like he should though. I really like Patterson for the exact reasons you do Seth. I just think that his upside is a lot less and would be a great pick if we sneak to around 8-10 (somehow). Great person, great worker, solid all-around game... reminds me of a PF version of Brandon Rush, which I just don't see as a superstar, but a very, very good piece to a TEAM.
                        "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


                        • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Heads up: Pacers' Director of Scouting Ryan Carr was in the Euroleague Junior Tournament in Belgrade this last week scouting Jan Vesely, per DX's Givony tweeter. International scout Joe Ash was in Bilbao for the Copa del Rey, probably scouting guys like Tomas Satoransky, Josep Franch and Pere Tomas (plus Lorbek and Barac, I suppose).

                          FWIW, even though Donatas Motiejunas has been getting all the hype, I'm inclined to believe that Vesely may be the better international prospect in the next draft, if he opts to enter it (I admit I haven't seen Motiejunas playing since last Summer though).

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            He really needs to work on his shooting stroke.
                            Wall is 46.3/34.7 and 1.43 PPS
                            He's got a 1.6 A/TO and let's be fair, he has the ball in his hands all the time two AND has Cousins to feed in the post which is not exactly a brilliant assist. Let alone having Patterson and Bledsoe too.

                            Turner is 54.1/25.8 (but rarely takes a three) and 1.40 PPS
                            He has a 1.5/1 A/TO ratio and there is no way he has more offensive options than Wall does.

                            I don't physically see anything superior about Wall vs Turner as an athlete. Wall's handles aren't really that great, not like an elite PG might have, meaning his handles aren't just destroying people and making jaws drop.

                            I'm not sure that Wall has a single move as good as Turner is off his crossover since he can go either way with it or rise up for makes consistently out of it.


                            I don't dislike Wall, but when I watch him I keep waiting to be amazed. I had little interest in Turner, less than Wall for sure, but he won me over because there are times I think "wow, I can't believe he can do that".

                            By talent I'd probably rate it as Turner, Cousins, Wall right now.

                            Top 3 discussion is probably a moot point anyway. Who can we take at 5 is probably the question, and if it were me I'd jump on Patterson there even over Favors.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I don't physically see anything superior about Wall vs Turner as an athlete.
                              Really? Kind of surprising, as that is a main selling point on Wall--his "extraterrestrial" athleticism.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2010 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                Turner is shooting 26% from the college 3 this year. He really needs to work on his shooting. He''s going to need to because he's not going to get those shots off around the basket in the NBA the way he's doing in college right now. He's not bad athletically, but he's not going dominate anyone in that department either.

                                He's basically playing like a poor man's college level Lebron this year. And he probably looks better doing that in a lesser league than in the pros,

                                John Wall is a superior athlete. He's a couple years younger. He plays a premium position. He's 19 years old, he's running the show for a Top 2 team in the country and he looks good doing it. He has the upside but also shown the maturity to manage running a team. He has excellent vision along with the quickness in athleticsm and he's going to play in an era in the NBA where you're not allowed to handcheck guys on the perimeter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X