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

2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

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

  • #31
    Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

    Originally posted by ballism View Post
    The reasons being injury, being an Aussie and not playing in New York? The guy gets snubbed and two months later he goes All-NBA despite missing a ton of games. Ahead of a bunch of healthy All stars.

    Honestly, did you not know / forget about it, or did you just ignore it to make this ridiculous "Bogut is a role player" discussion even longer? Lets save some time. Believe what you must. It's not about achievements. If you missed Bogut's play when he was healthy in 2010, too bad for you.
    Really? You're gonna sit here and use being an Aussie and "not playing in New York" as valid reasons why coaches have never elected him to an All-Star team and expect people to take this sort of conspiracy theory nonsense seriously?

    The real reason Bogut made the All-NBA 3rd Team in 2010 despite being snubbed from the All-Star team is simple: All-NBA teams differentiate between power forwards and centers; All-Star teams do not.

    Bogut was named the third best performer at by far the league's weakest position, center, yet, according to Eastern coaches, wasn't one of the best four or five big men in the East that year. That sounds reasonable to me. He's a big fish in a small pond when it comes to strictly the center position, yet when we open the flood gates and include power forwards, he becomes an average fish in a huge ocean.

    As for his play in 09-10: If you'd read above, you'd see that I addressed his 09-10 play and how that was his best scoring season, by far, and how he regressed back to his typical low double-figures form this past season.

    Bogut's career: An average of 35 wins per season, two seasons in the playoffs (including the 2010 postseason, which he sat out entirely), four seasons in the lottery. 1-4 in five career playoff games, with Solomon Jones-like averages of 8.6 ppg, 6.2 rpg, .435 from the field and .375 from the line.

    He is what he is: A nice overall role player who will likely never be the best player on a great, or even very good, team. Any GM who would take him over Chris Paul or Deron Williams should not only be fired on the spot, they should be tarred-and-feathered and heckled by every NBA fan alive.
    Last edited by Lance George; 07-13-2011, 02:35 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

      Did I just see a Solomon Jones and Bogut comparison...

      Sorry if I won't bother with an equally lengthy reply.
      I saw a healthy Bogut play as the 2nd best center in the league and a defensive player of the year candidate. You clearly never saw him as anything more than a role player.
      I think we are from different dimensions. Analysis of unsophisticated stats won't change that.
      PS: David Lee and Al Horford played nearly exclusively at center in 2009-2010 season. Just a random factoid for when you re-evalute your post.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

        Holy cow you go into some tiny, tiny details and stats involved in really small sample sizes to go out of your way to dog Bogut. Yao Ming has been an All Star the last 2 years. Guess he's been elite. Tim Duncan was an All Star last year too, his 13 and 9 stats are impeccable, and yes Duncan was chosen by the coach. So don't bother to say the coaches don't make bad All Star choices.

        That Paul Peirce guy, the one who's now a great closer, and a veteran winner, in 2006 was a perennial loser who couldn't do anything either. This is a freaking TEAM GAME. Bogut not making the playoffs or whatever is a reflection of the Bucks, not him. In 1996 when the Pacers floundered after a couple of ECF appearances, does that mean Reggie suddenly became bad and he's the reason we weren't in the playoffs, then the next year he popped back to form? Of course not. I've never understood the team success = good player argument. I guess the Bucks should dump Bogut and go get Mark Madsen.

        The playoff games are such a small sample size it's absurd to infer anything from them at all. Reggie went 1-16 in an NBA Finals game too, guess he sucks.

        You keep reading team records, individual accomplishments lists, and stats to form your opinion. I'll continue watching dozens of games with Bogut in them.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

          Both Bynum and Bogut have major health issues, which matter A LOT in trades. I wouldn't do Granger for either of them straight up just because he can stay healthy and they can't. Bogut is 20-10 potential, which would be better than Granger, but it has been stated how injury prone he is. I never got the hype of Bynum. He fits well in the triangle, but I don't see him being as good anywhere else- or at least he won't have another 7-footer alongside him mother other places.


          Carmel HS Class of 2011

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

            Originally posted by neosmndrew View Post
            Both Bynum and Bogut have major health issues, which matter A LOT in trades. I wouldn't do Granger for either of them straight up just because he can stay healthy and they can't. Bogut is 20-10 potential, which would be better than Granger, but it has been stated how injury prone he is. I never got the hype of Bynum. He fits well in the triangle, but I don't see him being as good anywhere else- or at least he won't have another 7-footer alongside him mother other places.
            I don't see Bogut as injury prone he just had a horrible injury and didn't recover well, I'll give you Bynum.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

              Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
              It still baffles me as to why teams take foreign, less known, "high ceiling" players #1 or very high (Bogut, Milicic) over the sure thing American's we've all seen play and know they will ateast be solid (Chris Paul, Lebron, Melo, Wade)
              You can't teach height.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

                Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                Remember when David Harrison totally dominated Bogut in the summer league?
                yeah...
                uh... go Pacers!
                Yeah, Harrison had the ability to be an extremely good center in this league. If he would have had the work ethic Hibbert has he would probably had turned into one of the top center's in the league. At the time everyone even said the only reason he dropped to us was because there were serious red flags about his work ethic. At the 31st pick I think it was worth it to take a chance on him in case he did turn it around because he did have the talent to be great.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Holy cow you go into some tiny, tiny details and stats involved in really small sample sizes to go out of your way to dog Bogut.
                  I'm not "dogging" Bogut. I've said he's a very good role player, just not a franchise talent; a guy who can be The Man on a significant team.

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Yao Ming has been an All Star the last 2 years. Guess he's been elite.
                  Being elected a starter in the All-Star game by the fans proves a players popularity level, not his ability level, thus your point fails miserably. The converse is typically true of the coach-voted reserves, which is what makes Bogut's zero All-Star appearances significant. Apparently, the league's coaches don't find Andrew Bogut to be quite as amazing as you and ballism do.


                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Tim Duncan was an All Star last year too, his 13 and 9 stats are impeccable, and yes Duncan was chosen by the coach. So don't bother to say the coaches don't make bad All Star choices.
                  Duncan probably didn't deserve to make the team, and I'm sure the coaches realized that. It was a respect bid; the coaches paying homage to his great career. Maybe it's not fair, but it's not a testament to NBA coaches' inability to correctly discern all-star talent, as you've made it out to be, either.

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  That Paul Peirce guy, the one who's now a great closer, and a veteran winner, in 2006 was a perennial loser who couldn't do anything either. This is a freaking TEAM GAME. Bogut not making the playoffs or whatever is a reflection of the Bucks, not him. In 1996 when the Pacers floundered after a couple of ECF appearances, does that mean Reggie suddenly became bad and he's the reason we weren't in the playoffs, then the next year he popped back to form? Of course not. I've never understood the team success = good player argument. I guess the Bucks should dump Bogut and go get Mark Madsen.
                  They don't need to dump Bogut, they just need to get a better best player. We probably do, too, although at least Danny brought his A-game when it mattered most.


                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  The playoff games are such a small sample size it's absurd to infer anything from them at all.
                  Perhaps Bogut's teams will start winning on a consistent basis one of these days and we'll have a much larger sample-size to work with.

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Reggie went 1-16 in an NBA Finals game too, guess he sucks.
                  Yes, because that single 1-16 performance nullifies years of playoff brilliance from Reggie. When you repeatedly prove yourself in the playoffs, as Reggie did, you're given leeway to throw up a stinker every now and then. The brilliance-to-disaster ratio is still overwhelmingly slanted towards the former.

                  What does that have to do with Andrew Bogut embarrassing himself in his lone playoff appearance?

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  You keep reading team records, individual accomplishments lists, and stats to form your opinion. I'll continue watching dozens of games with Bogut in them.
                  Watching dozens of games hasn't given you much of an argument outside of saying "I watch dozens of games."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

                    Hey let's all argue
                    DG for 3

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

                      Bogut's the 2nd best defensive center in the league and he also happens to play solid offense. I'd trade any current Pacer to have him as nobody on our team is as good as Bogut (currently). Anyone who's watched enough Bucks basketball would put Bogut in the top 3 of the '05 draft.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

                        Bogut no longer plays solid offense and is a huge injury concern. Last season he was a shell of what he was, and what he was is being overrated in here, and I do watch lots of bucks games.
                        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 2005 NBA Draft: Re-Drafted

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          As for his play in 09-10: If you'd read above, you'd see that I addressed his 09-10 play and how that was his best scoring season, by far, and how he regressed back to his typical low double-figures form this past season.
                          Wow... not sure how you evaluate a player's 'typical' performance/stats based on their first 3 and a half seasons in the league; particularly given that player is a 7' pivot, the type of player which usually takes years to find their place and develop in this league.

                          Bogut's 15.9pts, 10rbs, 2asts, 2.5blks, campaign of 09-10 was fantastic output from a developing young centre in his 4th proper season of more than 30-odd games... saying he then regressed to his 'typical' (again this is absurd given his bare 3.5 seasons in the league) performance is simply a joke. This was DIRECTLY a result of one of the most atrocious injuries since Livingston's knee, and one that has greatly affected his shooting arm/hand and subsequently his entire game ever since.

                          Bogut WOULD have been a star in this league, possibly of the super-variety. He will never reach that potential now due to his horrific injury... but you can't say you aren't dogging Bogut when you say he would have only ever been a role player. His 09-10 campaign was not over-achieving, as you have been alluding to... this was only his 4th substantial season in the league and he would have without-a-doubt elevated his game further than this and become a bonafide-star in the NBA.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X