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

Anthony Randolph available

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

  • #16
    Re: Anthony Randolph available

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Why would New York do that?


    Because it's not a good trade unless it's hugely one-sided in our favor.

    Doodyhead!! Come on, McFly! Think!
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Anthony Randolph available

      I've made my feelings on Randolph clear in the other threads discussing him. He's the best power forward prospect available, and that includes any realistic selection in next year's draft. He rebounds and blocks shots at a high level, and has an offensive skill-set that, with some fine-tuning, could easily translate into a 16-20+ ppg scorer.

      We'd be beyond foolish to not look into acquiring him.

      I'd offer them McBob and Price; a replacement PF and a good, cheap backup point guard. If they didn't like that, or any other offer that didn't involve Danny, Roy, Darren or Paul, then I'd offer a protected first-round pick.
      Last edited by Lance George; 12-20-2010, 06:44 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Anthony Randolph available

        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
        I've made my feelings on Randolph clear in the other threads discussing him. He's the best power forward prospect available, and that includes any realistic selection in next year's draft. He rebounds and blocks shots at a high level, and has an offensive skill-set that, with some fine-tuning, could easily translate into a 16-20+ ppg scorer.

        We'd be beyond foolish to not look into acquiring him.
        Why hasn't he been able to get minutes on teams that desperately lacked size and his skill set then?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Anthony Randolph available

          I wouldn't give the moon and stars for him. But he is a low risk/high reward player that I'd take a chance on. Just don't know how he'd do under JOB.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Anthony Randolph available

            Most importantly, can he stretch the floor?
            http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
            "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Anthony Randolph available

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Why hasn't he been able to get minutes on teams that desperately lacked size and his skill set then?
              As far as I know, his problem is that his offensive game is still too flawed, primarily due to not playing smart on that end of the court. A questionable shot-selection, trying to do too much, etc. He has huge potential there due to his athleticism, length and ball-handling skills, but he's still very rough-around-the-edges.

              His rebounding and shot blocking ability, the two things that I'm most interested in, are indisputable.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Anthony Randolph available

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                As far as I know, his problem is that his offensive game is still too flawed, primarily due to not playing smart on that end of the court. A questionable shot-selection, trying to do too much, etc. He has huge potential there due to his athleticism, length and ball-handling skills, but he's still very rough-around-the-edges.

                His rebounding and shot blocking ability, the two things that I'm most interested in, are indisputable.
                I don't know too much about him. I honestly don't like watching the Knicks. I mean, they're the Knicks, lol.


                But if this is the case, I'd love to make a deal, provided we don't sell the farm to get him. If it's his offensive game that's rough, I'm fine with that. We have enough guys who can put the ball in the basket. We need a guy who can take some pressure off Roy on the defensive end.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Anthony Randolph available

                  Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                  I don't know too much about him. I honestly don't like watching the Knicks. I mean, they're the Knicks, lol.


                  But if this is the case, I'd love to make a deal, provided we don't sell the farm to get him. If it's his offensive game that's rough, I'm fine with that. We have enough guys who can put the ball in the basket. We need a guy who can take some pressure off Roy on the defensive end.
                  It's not just his offensive game that is rough. His numbers are good, but he has the "deer in headlights" look about him quite a lot. So while he blocks shots and gets rebounds in his limited minutes, it doesn't make him a good defender by any means. It means he has the potential (always the magic word, eh?) to be a very good defender, but he isn't there yet, not by a longshot.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Anthony Randolph available

                    I highly doubt he is moved until the Melo situation is resolved. He's their chip needed to get the 1st rounder.

                    If Melo to NYK indeed unravels, I'd take a flyer on him. His potential far exceeds anything we have on our roster at the 4. NYK needs depth without taking on salary. Something like Curry (expiring), Mason (expiring) & Randolph for TJ (expiring), Foster (expiring), and McRoberts would likely suit both teams well. NYK would beef up their bench while we take a chance on a PF w/o giving up any long term core pieces. Neither team adds salary.

                    I'd buyout Curry immediately in this scenario.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Anthony Randolph available

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                      As far as I know, his problem is that his offensive game is still too flawed, primarily due to not playing smart on that end of the court. A questionable shot-selection, trying to do too much, etc. He has huge potential there due to his athleticism, length and ball-handling skills, but he's still very rough-around-the-edges.

                      His rebounding and shot blocking ability, the two things that I'm most interested in, are indisputable.
                      Says the guy who thinks Josh McRoberts belongs in the D-League.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Anthony Randolph available

                        I think the Melo situation really puts the Knicks behind the 8-ball. Carmelo wants to go to the Knicks, and he's giving the Knicks the sign to come get me. The Nets are out there doing all they to get the necessary pieces to make a deal work, but they have extension worries.

                        It doesn't appear the Nuggets want Randolph, so the Knicks have to get picks, to go with Gallinari and expiring contracts.

                        Now it was rumored the Pacers offered a 1st round pick for Randolph, and Walsh declined. Of course this was when the Knicks were after Rudy Fernandez and not Carmelo Anthony.

                        I think Randolph's value has declined since then, but the potential is still there. If the Pacers are still interested, I would try to get the Knicks to take on Dahntay Jones in addition to the 1st round pick.

                        Randolph's downfall seems to be his feeling of entitlement to playing time. This is only rumored, but it's rumored his work ethic just isn't there, even though the talent might be.

                        I think the Pacers the would be a good fit for a few reasons. One you surround Randolph with guys like Hibbert, McRoberts and Hansbrough who are constantly working hard and pushing themselves to get better. You would hope this rubs off on Randolph seeing young guys his age working so hard.

                        He rebounds and blocks shots which is something the Pacers are desperately in search of.

                        And finally when it comes to hard work, one of our hardest working players doesn't even see the court at one of our position of need, so with Randolph in the same position, if he can do the things that Jim O'Brien likes, he'll get minutes regardless of work ethic, how bad he plays, or what position he plays.

                        If we can do a 1st and Dahntay for Randolph, I say why not

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Anthony Randolph available

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          If we can do a 1st and Dahntay for Randolph, I say why not
                          If I were to look at this and ignore how JO'B fits into all of this....I could see Randolph as a player that I wouldn't mind acquiring based purely on what he can offer....but given the possibility that JO'B COULD be our Coach for the next couple of seasons I have to look at how our roster beyond this season fits into the type of Players that JO'B wants on his floor.

                          But let's ask the obvious question....based off of what has been seen of Randolph when he was on the floor....does his skill set fit the type of PF/Center that JO'B needs in his offense and defense?

                          For lack of a better word....we know that JO'B wants to have Players that can "stretch the floor"....maybe not all the way beyond the 3pt line...but at least Players have to be able to hit a jumpshot 7-10 feet beyond the paint in order to open up the floor and clog up the middle. For all the potential, hops, athleticism that Randolph has....if he doesn't have the smarts to understand what needs to be done on the offensive and defensive end or even the necessary skill set that JO'B requires of the Players that he would play...then Randolph would be doing the same thing that he has been doing at GSW and NY....sitting at the end of the bench pouting.

                          My initial thought is that he's a gamble that I would not mind taking, but I have a feeling that he wouldn't fit the type of Player that JO'B wants in his offense/defense. If JO'B is here....just like drafting Hansbrough ( who I think will be a mistake if JO'B remains the Coach for the long-term ), if Randolph doesn't fit the mold of the type of PF that JO'B will likely use while not having the smarts to figure out where he's supposed to be on the defensive end and what he's supposed to do ( which I suspect would be the case ), then I wouldn't want to give up too much for him.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 12-20-2010, 12:30 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Anthony Randolph available

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            Why hasn't he been able to get minutes on teams that desperately lacked size and his skill set then?
                            IMO it's probably similar to the Hansbrough thing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Anthony Randolph available

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              Says the guy who thinks Josh McRoberts belongs in the D-League.
                              McBob is averaging 10.8-points per-36-minutes this season, his fourth.

                              Magic Randolph averaged 11.6-points in just 22.7-minutes of actual playing time last season, his second.

                              One has shown flashes of being a great scorer in his young career. The other has not, preferring to jack up threes.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Anthony Randolph available

                                Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                                IMO it's probably similar to the Hansbrough thing.
                                Probably has something to do with it. But for two different coaches? With two different organizations? It begins to make you wonder, no?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X