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

Bledsoe

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

  • #61
    Re: Bledsoe

    Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
    I'll admit that I haven't seen Bledsoe much before the tournament. But why is everyone so gung ho about drafting him so high? He hasn't looked all that impressive to me, especially last night against WVU. He's only averaging 10 points, 3 rebounds, and 3 assists per game, and his assist-to-turnover ratio has been 2.5:1. I mean the numbers aren't terrible, but they aren't exactly lottery pick worthy. If this were last year, he likely wouldn't even be mentioned in the first round.
    You can't get caught up on a couple of games, or stats when a player is on a really good team or out of position. You have to watch the player and simply see if he can play the game, see how he impacts the game. See how his game will translate to the NBA game, and unfortunately determine his potential.

    Russell Westbrook averages 12 pts, 3 rebs and 4 ast when he came out and had the same assist to turnover ratio as Bledsoe, he was also not playing the PG playing along side Collison. He started off 9-11 in mocks and ended up going 4th come draft night.

    Look at Jrue Holiday as well in the same situation, average 8 points last year, and was someone that a lot of digest members wanted to draft. He fell to 17th, but has played really well towards the end of season for the 76ers and should be a good player.

    Brandon Jennings didn't play in college, but played small time professionally overseas, and he's turned out pretty well.

    You really just have to see if the guy can play the position you want him to play in the NBA and be successful. If you watch film, live games, workouts and feel that way then you draft the guy.

    I think Bledsoe is a lock in the top 10 if he comes out, and I think he may go higher, but a lot will depends on his workouts. If those go really well, then he may be top 5, just like the 2011 mock drafts project him

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Bledsoe

      Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
      If we cannot get an immediate impact player we should trade down. Seriously what I am dumbfounded on is the infatuation with Patterson or Monroe. To me they are in the same category as what everyone is complaining about with Bledsoe..which is they are not immediate impact players. To be honest I would rather have Cousins than Patterson. I think he brings more to the table in the NBA than Patterson, but what we NEED is help at the guard position and to me Bledsoe is worth a shot but I think we could trade down to get him.
      I agree with the trade down but keep in Mind Mia has two first round (mid) and Memphis has 3 first round picks (Denver/LAL) so if a team is willing to take on an expiring salary and move up to acquire that player to get them in the playoffs then let's make a deal. My problem is that "player" does not exist in this draft unless Memphis or Miami wants Monroe/Aldrich/Patterson. They would also have to throw in some talent but Mia has a lot of expiring contracts and Memphis won't come off Conley.

      I feel we select Tyler Smith with the Mavericks second round pick via Shawne Williams trade if he is available. Yes I know he has got in trouble so did AJ Price and afterall Tyler Smith is not Charles Manson. I want more speed and athletes. Dont care if they drink milk or malt liquor I need a postseason appearence ASAP !!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Bledsoe

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        Thats the point. Everyone would and I believe you are right that he will go in the top 5 next year if he stays. We are not drafting in the top 5 next year and IMO the only way we get a really good pg is if we pay/trade for one or if we draft one. This is where Bird has to trust in his scouting.

        There are a number of pgs that come out and everyone is sort of iffy on them. Last year we were talking about Brandon Jennings and the year before that it was Westbrook. Can the guy make the leap to the NBA is all I hear every year.

        Honestly I think the pg postion is one of the safest postions to draft especially with a pick from 1-10. IF we were talking about him being undersized or being a sg for all his life then yes I would be less comfortable about drafting him. Fact is he is not undersized and he is just playing sg because of Wall. The draft is about finding talent that is combined with a good work eithic. I think he has both just like Patterson.
        What scouting? How do you know he doesn't have the PG skills of Ben Gordon (and he very probably will never have Gordon's jump-shooting skills)? What if he's a poor man's Monta Ellis?

        In my opinion, without seeing him playing as the lead guard, it's impossible to scout him as a future NBA PG. Too many things left out. The way I see it, saying that Bledsoe is going to be a very good PG is a leap of faith - it may be right, but it's not rooted on basketball observations.

        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
        I'll admit that I haven't seen Bledsoe much before the tournament. But why is everyone so gung ho about drafting him so high? He hasn't looked all that impressive to me, especially last night against WVU. He's only averaging 10 points, 3 rebounds, and 3 assists per game, and his assist-to-turnover ratio has been 2.5:1. I mean the numbers aren't terrible, but they aren't exactly lottery pick worthy. If this were last year, he likely wouldn't even be mentioned in the first round.
        Great physical tools --- fast+explosive+great first step --- + very good defender + reputation as a PG from his high-school times.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Bledsoe

          I guess the question comes down to whether he is able to show his skills and convince some GM in the Workouts that he can be a PG.

          I didn't pay much attention to Westbrook until the draft and the workouts. Did he go into the draft being touted as a Comboguard or a PG that was stuck behind Collison in the PG rotation at UCLA?

          I guess I'm asking.....are we looking at the same situaton as Westbrook?

          As important, can workouts tend to weed out whether they have the PG skills or not?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Bledsoe

            IIRC, Bledsoe is 6'1" with a 6'5" reach and a 40" vertical jump. These are definately great assets to go along with his having great speed, 1st step, and being able to play "D". I just wish there was more info on his ability of playing PG.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Bledsoe

              I wouldn't be highly upset with drafting Bledsoe in the lottery, but I don't think he would be my first choice at the #10 spot.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Bledsoe

                If his reputation in HS was that he was a good PG, I have to assume he knows how to play like one.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Bledsoe

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  If his reputation in HS was that he was a good PG, I have to assume he knows how to play like one.
                  Agreed. 11 assists/game in high school seems to indicate that he could learn to play the position at an NBA level with proper coaching (not that the Pacers can provide that just yet).

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Bledsoe

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    If his reputation in HS was that he was a good PG, I have to assume he knows how to play like one.
                    Why? Completely different games. The type/level of ball-handling, decision making, creativity, passing skills, pick'n'roll execution, etc. you need in HS is different than the one needed in college and even more different than the one you need in the NBA.

                    Do you think TJ Ford is a good PG, as in a good quarterback for his team? Because he was outstanding in high-school. In the year Chris Paul came out of HS, Mustafa Shakur, who's been tearing down the D-League for most of this season, was ranked above him by some services. It'd be worse if he had been an off-guard during his early formative years trying to make a transition to PG in college, like many others, but I still wouldn't read too much into it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Bledsoe

                      Do we or do we not need a solid PG????? If we do, then Bledsoe is our pick. If we don't, then Bledsoe is NOT our pick. It's really that simple. Everyone is talking as if there are 3-5 prospects to choose from.


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Bledsoe

                        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                        Do we or do we not need a solid PG????? If we do, then Bledsoe is our pick. If we don't, then Bledsoe is NOT our pick. It's really that simple. Everyone is talking as if there are 3-5 prospects to choose from.
                        You're over-simplifying the NBA draft a bit. Drafting need over talent causes teams to pass up on good players. Good players are assets, regardless of position. Busts are worthless.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Bledsoe

                          It's all about what you've seen in films and what you see in workouts.

                          Guys have played PG all four years in college and still weren't good enough for the NBA.

                          You have guys recently that have played one year of PG in college and are really good PGs (Derrick Rose, Tyreke Evans even Stephen Curry) Johnny Flynn is solid as well.

                          Westbrook and Holiday played off guard and are doing fine at the PG. Many on here were super excited about Bayless.

                          I can't wait to see how Bledsoe and others workout. It happens every year where players who were projected early drop, while other players rise. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes out of blue.

                          Regardless I'm hoping someone rises or drops this year that will help the Pacers.... if they don't strike lottery gold

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Bledsoe

                            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                            Dont care if they drink milk or malt liquor I need a postseason appearence ASAP !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Bledsoe

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              My thing with Bledsoe is that he could use an extra year at KY to shine and develop his PG game. I'd feel more comfortable with him as a prospect if he were to do that.
                              I agree. But word is that Brandon Knight is showing some love to Calipari. (WWWes connection) He's expected to announce his choice by mid April. I can see Bledsoe not wanting to play 2 straight years as a shooting guard/second fiddle. Knight is I think only the 3rd 2 time POY besides Lebron and...ahhh can't remember the other. My feeling is if Knight commits, Bledsoe jumps ship.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Bledsoe

                                Originally posted by IndyProdigy View Post
                                what impresses me most about these videos is his explosion. He did 2 put back slams as a 6'0" - 6'1" point guard is impressive.

                                He could easily lead this team, and the difference between him and most other point guards his size, is that hes not afraid to take it to the rack and absorb contact in the air. And hes been working on his shot as a 2 guard in the kentucky lineup to boot, all signs point to being a great pick.

                                Now the question TRULY lies with bird. is he willing to take a freshman? That i doubt, i hope he proves me wrong.

                                Our last 4 draft aquisitions have been 4 year seniors, so we'll see.
                                Freddie Jones was an AWESOME dunker (won the slam dunk title).
                                Never was a starter though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X