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

The Official PG Search Thread

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

  • #46
    Re: The Official PG Search Thread

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/steve_blake/index.html

    He is not as old as people think

    Steve Blake

    2009-10 Statistics
    PPG 7.3 RPG 2.30 APG 4.8 EFF + 9.65

    Born: Feb 26, 1980
    Height: 6-3 / 1.91
    Weight: 172 lbs. / 78.0 kg.
    College: Maryland
    Years Pro: 6
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Official PG Search Thread

      Originally posted by docpaul View Post

      I think it's useful to look at this for a few reasons... I think if we are to believe that they offered $3 million to OKC to trade up for Rolle, I think it makes Solomon Jones *much* more expendable than Rolle. So he's 13, if so.
      They didn't offer $3 million to move up to take Rolle late in the 2nd. They offered $3 million to move up late into the first for Stephenson. I'd be shocked if they offered 300k for the Rolle deal.
      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

      -Lance Stephenson

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Official PG Search Thread

        Out of all the PGs, I would love to get Hinrich. He plays amazing defence and is a great floor leader. I dont see him being at Washington for too long. They have a log-jam at PG with Wall, Arenas, Hinrich and (though hes a combo) Foye.

        Hinrich doesnt have a great contract, but I'd much rather pay him $8.5 million (his contract is one of the rare ones that declines as the years go along) this year than pay Ford $8.5 to sit on the bench.

        If we obtained Hinrich's services he would be by far our best PG annd would definitely take the starting role. I would actually like Hinrich at PG for the long term. I would be totally happy if we re-signed him after this contract was up. He only has 2 more seasons left on his contract
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Official PG Search Thread

          Keyon Dooling is available.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Official PG Search Thread

            Stats are imperfect. We all know that.

            Here are a couple called 'Passing Rating' and 'Hands Rating' that they use at 82games.com.

            Passing Rating is an attempt "to reward passes leading to successful shots from close range at a higher rate than assisted outside shots, while including the rate of passing turnovers" (82games.com). This is basically a measure of how many dunks and layups these guys are creating for their teammates, so it's going to be slanted in favor of certain offenses. A guy like Paul who plays in transition a lot and has a really nice pick and roll game is going to have a higher rating than a drive and kick guy who's team doesn't run much like Parker. Click here for more info: http://www.82games.com/chempass.htm

            Hands Rating is a turnover rating that takes bad passes, offensive fouls, and ball-handling turnovers into account. This is basically a rating of how good they are at protecting the ball.

            I'm not going to list all the guys on the list, but I'll do some of the more interesting ones. Higher numbers are better in both categories.

            Code:
            Player           Passing   'Hands'
            
            Chris Paul          17.9     33.9
            Darren Collison     10.7     20.7
            Tony Parker          9.3     19.4
            George Hill          4.1     15.7
            Raymond Felton      10.2     25.1
            D.J. Augustin        7.1     21.6
            Kirk Hinrich         8.0     19.4
            Mo Williams         10.7     23.4
            Delonte West         8.1     18.1
            Tywon Lawson        10.3     20.6
            Monta Ellis          8.0     17.1
            Kyle Lowry          11.7     22.3
            Jordan Farmar        4.8     15.2
            Shannon Brown        3.3     12.8
            Mike Conley          9.7     21.7
            Luke Ridnour         9.6     23.0
            Ramon Sessions       7.6     17.1
            Jonny Flynn          7.4     15.6
            Chris Duhon         10.3     22.9
            Eric Maynor         12.5     25.8
            Louis Williams       9.9     23.4
            Andre Miller        11.8     23.8
            Jose Calderon       14.2     34.9
            Jarrett Jack        11.2     22.0
            Randy Foye           7.4     18.9
            Shaun Livingston     9.8     20.5
            Steve Blake         10.1     22.8
            Last edited by OakMoses; 06-29-2010, 01:23 PM.
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Official PG Search Thread

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              I've always loved Blake....but he's a long term, very solid Backup PG and even good enough to be an Emergency Starting PG for the short term for a Playoff/Championship Team.....but he isn't a Long-term Starting quality PG for a Playoff/Championship Team.
              thats kinda all we really need. if next years draft class is loaded w/ pg's like ive heard, im cool with blake running the point for a year. and im definitely okay with him as our backup for the next 3 competing with price.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                Out of all the PGs, I would love to get Hinrich. He plays amazing defence and is a great floor leader. I dont see him being at Washington for too long. They have a log-jam at PG with Wall, Arenas, Hinrich and (though hes a combo) Foye.

                Hinrich doesnt have a great contract, but I'd much rather pay him $8.5 million (his contract is one of the rare ones that declines as the years go along) this year than pay Ford $8.5 to sit on the bench.

                If we obtained Hinrich's services he would be by far our best PG annd would definitely take the starting role. I would actually like Hinrich at PG for the long term. I would be totally happy if we re-signed him after this contract was up. He only has 2 more seasons left on his contract
                and it is reasonable to believe washington would do this. great idea.

                Ford for Hinrich

                issue resolved and we draft a pg next summer. washington is not moving arenas anytime soon, but they may value hinrich, but im guessing cap space would intrigue them.

                i like this idea perhaps as much as the NO's deal.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                  A guy who could really be a bargain would be Patrick Mills a lot of you have probably never heard of him but he is a really good quality point guard a little undersized really good skills, good passer, can get to the rim quite easily for someone his size, super quick decent outside shooter without being great.
                  I'm from Australia he played really good in the olympics he was Australia's best player against the USA, He had a great career at St Marys(CA) but his stock dropped however because in his last year he broke is hand.

                  he could be a really good option he was stuck behind Beyless and Blake at portland last year so no one has really seen what he can do in the NBA yet.

                  other pg's I'm interested in are CJ Watson, George Hill, Darren Collison and Raymond Felton.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                    Originally posted by oz_pacer View Post
                    A guy who could really be a bargain would be Patrick Mills a lot of you have probably never heard of him but he is a really good quality point guard a little undersized really good skills, good passer, can get to the rim quite easily for someone his size, super quick decent outside shooter without being great.
                    I'm from Australia he played really good in the olympics he was Australia's best player against the USA, He had a great career at St Marys(CA) but his stock dropped however because in his last year he broke is hand.

                    he could be a really good option he was stuck behind Beyless and Blake at portland last year so no one has really seen what he can do in the NBA yet.

                    other pg's I'm interested in are CJ Watson, George Hill, Darren Collison and Raymond Felton.
                    I have heard of him- I actually wanted him over AJ Price last year. Isn't he already on a team's actual roster, though? Or was he waived?
                    Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                      Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                      I have heard of him- I actually wanted him over AJ Price last year. Isn't he already on a team's actual roster, though? Or was he waived?
                      yea i was hopeing we picked him with our second rounder last year too. well he is a restricted FA i think but i was watching Australia vs Argentina friendly the other night and he was interviewed and he said he is hopeful the blazers would pick up his option so blazers must have a team option for this season.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        and it is reasonable to believe washington would do this. great idea.

                        Ford for Hinrich

                        issue resolved and we draft a pg next summer. washington is not moving arenas anytime soon, but they may value hinrich, but im guessing cap space would intrigue them.

                        i like this idea perhaps as much as the NO's deal.
                        Murphy for Hinrich might make more sense for both teams. As of right now Washington has Javale McGee, Aundray Blatche, Hamady N'Diaye, and Trevor Booker. Blatche is the oldest at 24, and he's far from what you'd call a steady veteran presence.

                        Murphy makes about $3 million less than Hinrich, and he'll be easier to move at the deadline if Washington wants to try and use him to grab some talent.

                        and I'm the guy who didn't want this to turn into a trade proposal thread.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                          Murphy for Hinrich might make more sense for both teams. As of right now Washington has Javale McGee, Aundray Blatche, Hamady N'Diaye, and Trevor Booker. Blatche is the oldest at 24, and he's far from what you'd call a steady veteran presence.

                          Murphy makes about $3 million less than Hinrich, and he'll be easier to move at the deadline if Washington wants to try and use him to grab some talent.

                          and I'm the guy who didn't want this to turn into a trade proposal thread.
                          Murphy makes about $3 million more than Hinrich.
                          Last edited by count55; 06-29-2010, 08:27 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                            Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                            and it is reasonable to believe washington would do this. great idea.

                            Ford for Hinrich

                            issue resolved and we draft a pg next summer. washington is not moving arenas anytime soon, but they may value hinrich, but im guessing cap space would intrigue them.

                            i like this idea perhaps as much as the NO's deal.

                            Washington isn't picking up Foye's qualifying offer thus making him a UFA, so Hinrich won't be traded.
                            Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-29-2010, 09:42 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                              I've finished posting the numbers for most of the interesting players on the list. You can see the post here: http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost...2&postcount=50

                              What do we learn? Mostly things we already know.

                              Jose Calderon, offensively, seems way ahead of the "Not Chris Paul" pack.

                              The most surprising thing to me was how well Eric Maynor fared. He was 3rd in both categories behind Paul and Calderon.

                              Kyle Lowry looks pretty nice here.

                              Raymond Felton looks solid. His 'Hands' rating is higher than I expected. I wonder how much of this is due to the slow pace and tight reins of Larry Brown.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Official PG Search Thread

                                I'm with vnzla81 in bringing in Steve Blake.

                                Although he's not the super young PG long term, he's only 30 and has a good 5 years left in him and hopefully doesn't slow down.

                                When Portland brought in Andre Miller while they had Steve Blake, I thought that was actually a very good PG rotation.

                                I would trade Ford for Andre Miller straight up as well as sign Blake to a decent 3 year contract.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X