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

should we draft Gordon Hayward?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Another one saying we should actually take this kid at #10? You have got to be kidding me.
    Well, Chad Ford thinks someone could take him at 12

    Originally posted by Chad Ford, ESPN Insider
    Gordon Hayward, G/F, Butler Bulldogs
    Hayward had a great tournament. After getting the exposure he needed, a number of GMs I spoke with think he's a lock for the top 20 if he declares. But as much as the legend has grown, his performance in the championship game was uneven. His shot wasn't falling and at times he wasn't aggressive. Hayward had two chances to win a national championship for Butler in the final seconds of the game versus Duke. Both times the shots came painfully close to going in. Had he made either one, he would be a hero right now. The fact that he couldn't connect all night will have some claiming he's been overhyped. But when you look at his body of work the past two years -- his toughness and the fact he had to carry his team on his shoulders -- I think most can see why many NBA GMs see him as a potential pro.

    If he decides to declare for the draft, look for him to go somewhere between No. 12 and No. 20.
    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?...aft&id=5059811
    2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

    Comment


    • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

      Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
      If Gordon was a black guy, he would easily be a top five pick in the draft. I mean that rebound/put back he had was sick. It demonstrated his supreme athleticism. IMO he has shown way more abillity than Derrick Favors, who will be picked in the top five.
      ....................









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

      Comment


      • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

        He needs to stay at Butler and hone his skills for the NBA. I don't want to see another Kirk Haston. He left for the money, and how is his NBA career doing these days?

        Comment


        • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

          Originally posted by bulldog View Post
          Well, Chad Ford thinks someone could take him at 12


          http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?...aft&id=5059811
          Hoopshype had him in the 20's before the tournament.

          Even 2 days ago a scout on the afternoon radio (950 or 1260) show was telling his teams to take him or be sorry.

          Honestly I think a team in the mid 20's would take him.

          Comment


          • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            He needs to stay at Butler and hone his skills for the NBA. I don't want to see another Kirk Haston. He left for the money, and how is his NBA career doing these days?
            Again you could say that about anyone in the 20's range.

            Comment


            • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

              http://www.indystar.com/article/2010.../1088/SPORTS04

              Three Pacers opine on Hayward's future
              By Mike Wells
              Posted: April 7, 2010Comments (2) Recommend E-mail Print

              Gordon Hayward was the man of the hour during the Butler Bulldogs' run to the NCAA title game.

              NBA scouts and front office officials raved about his toughness, his high basketball IQ and that he's a 6-9 player with a guard's skills.

              Now Hayward is about to face a decision tougher than the half-court shot that just missed at the buzzer against Duke.

              The Brownsburg, Ind., native can return for his junior season at Butler or jump to the NBA.

              Hayward has been projected to go as high as No. 12 to late in the first round.

              "At this point, he's kind of the guy that's the hot topic," Indiana Pacers forward Josh McRoberts said. "I would like to tell him what he can expect if he decides to come out or if he expects to stay."

              Several Pacers have been in this situation.

              Mike Dunleavy enjoyed playing at Duke and didn't want to enter the draft after his junior season. He knew, however, he had to go because he was projected to be a top-five selection in 2002. He was the third pick that year.

              "Fortunately for me, my dad (Mike Dunleavy Sr.) being in NBA circles, he was able to ask a lot of people where I was going to go," Dunleavy said. "I really enjoyed being in college and playing for coach (Mike Krzyzewski). But there was too much risk for me to return to school."

              McRoberts, Troy Murphy and Roy Hibbert hurt their draft position by returning to school.

              McRoberts was a projected lottery pick after his senior year at Carmel High School and freshman year at Duke. He returned for his sophomore year and slid to the second round of that year's draft.

              He went from having a two-year guaranteed contract to having to earn a roster spot with the Portland Trail Blazers.

              "If he comes back for another year, people have more time to nitpick every little thing he does," McRoberts said. "Something he does positive now, next year they're going to nitpick at it and say he's not as good."

              Hibbert and Murphy didn't fall as far as McRoberts.

              They went from top-10 picks to being selected 17th and 14th, respectively.

              Hibbert said he wasn't ready after his junior year. He needed another year of college preparation.

              "You have to ask yourself if you're ready to produce every game," Hibbert said. "You may be a top-10 pick, but are you strong mentally and physically? I didn't think I was ready at the time.

              "You can't worry about the money if you drop. Big John (Thompson, a former Georgetown coach) always told me the draft is an ego trip. The day after the draft, you get down to business and then you'll make your money up in your second contract, depending how hard you work."

              Scouts say Hayward, who averaged 15.1 points, needs to get stronger and regain the shooting touch he had as a freshman.

              Murphy returned for his junior season at Notre Dame because he wanted to experience the NCAA Tournament for the first time. He knew he wasn't going to go from averaging 22 points and 10 rebounds to 35 points and 20 rebounds by playing an extra year.

              "Hayward has to understand, it's a business decision and a life decision," Dunleavy said. "People have mixed emotions about it. That's why you have to get away from everything, clear your head and make a decision."
              Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

              Comment


              • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                I don't see him as an NBA player, imho. I'm with the idea that I can't see who he can guard at the next level. I don't see the quickness or strength needed to compete. At best if his outside shot gets to that Kapono level then he could carve out a spot as a specialist. I think he's the prototypical really really good college player, sorry. If he was 6'11" or if he was more athletic and stronger I'd feel a little differently. I just don't think his game translates.

                If this draft bears him to be picked top 20 then I think this is a horribly weak draft, imho.

                That said if he can get guaranteed 1st round money, I think he ought to maybe do it because I can't see his value getting any higher than right now.

                Comment


                • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                  Anthony Randolph is 6-11 and rail thin playing for the Golden State.
                  Rookie Austin Daye, about 6-9 and rail thin, playing for Detroit.

                  If Daye can make the rotation in Detroit looking like a strong wind could sweep him off his feet, then I don't think Hayward has much to worry about.
                  If you can play, then you can play. The haters need to step off.
                  Last edited by graphic-er; 04-07-2010, 10:28 AM.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                    Right now Hayward is being projected anywhere between 12th-late 1st round. His stock will never be this high if he returns to Butler, IMO.

                    Comment


                    • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                      Originally posted by USF View Post

                      "You can't worry about the money if you drop. Big John (Thompson, a former Georgetown coach) always told me the draft is an ego trip. The day after the draft, you get down to business and then you'll make your money up in your second contract, depending how hard you work."

                      For many, PLEASE read this carefully.

                      I sure hope Heyward and his family does!

                      Comment


                      • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                        Anthony Randolph is 6-11 and rail thin playing for the Golden State.
                        Rookie Austin Daye, about 6-9 and rail thin, playing for Detroit.

                        If Daye can make the rotation in Detroit looking like a strong wind could sweep him off his feet, then I don't think Hayward has much to worry about.
                        If you can play, then you can play. The haters need to step off.

                        AND what's wrong with him staying in school honing his game to give him a better chance of success in the NBA?

                        Comment


                        • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          AND what's wrong with him staying in school honing his game to give him a better chance of success in the NBA?
                          Nothing at all. I'm referring to the folks who say he doesn't offer anything at the pro level, won't be able to defend, can't get his shot off. These people know nothing. They act like if a player doesn't meet a certain list of requirements coming out of college then their not worth a dam and never will be.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            For many, PLEASE read this carefully.

                            I sure hope Heyward and his family does!
                            Don't get me wrong in my response. I understand what you are saying but I just don't know if it applies to Heyward.

                            I honestly don't know if he is good enough to get a good second contract and when I say good enough I mean talent/athletic wise not because he will have a terrible work ethic.

                            This may be his only chance to make a couple of million.

                            Comment


                            • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                              Oh I'll root for the guy, how can you not, but I stand by my opinion.

                              To me, Daye and Randolph are bad examples. Daye has crazy length and Randolph is a legit 6'11". I'd offer up Gallenari as a good example for him possibly having NBA success, if I was of the opposite opinion.

                              Comment


                              • Re: should we draft Gordon Hayward?

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                Oh I'll root for the guy, how can you not, but I stand by my opinion.

                                To me, Daye and Randolph are bad examples. Daye has crazy length and Randolph is a legit 6'11". I'd offer up Gallenari as a good example for him possibly having NBA success, if I was of the opposite opinion.
                                Actually they are not bad examples because both of them are very soft, thin players who people say have a ton of potential. If they can make it in the league, then Hayward can too.

                                Hayward has plenty of length, and I don't think anyone can regard him as being soft.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X