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

Chad Ford's 9.0

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

  • #31
    Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

    Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
    But could his lack of size limit him from reaching that point, and making him more of a Luther Head?
    Luther Head's problem was a long release Jenkins is the opposite. Jenkins size isnt ideal by any means but his IQ combined with his handle makes him scary with his shooting.


    I believe if Jenkins was 5'3 and he would still be effective because once his man rotates off him it gives him open looks and his release is just lighting quick. Honestly if I had a kid John Jenkins release would be the one I would tell my kid to watch it is damn near perfect.

    I think he has plenty of size to be a offensive weapon off the bench. His handle sets him apart from Reddick and others like them.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      I'm kind of confused as to what need Draymond Green fills for us immediately honestly
      *green* He'd take Lou's spot as the backup C.
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

        Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
        This mock sucks. Who in the world would take Bradley Beal, Thomas Robinson, and Harrison Barnes over MKG?


        Apparently, people who do it for a living. Not saying they are right, but it's what they get paid the bucks for doing it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

          Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how Draymond Green would exactly give us that we need. Is he an upgrade over Hansbrough at the 4? Probably not. Can he consistently be our backup 3 behind Granger? Big maybe.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            D Green is a Power Forward at the next level, right? When I watched him in college not once could I see him at the small forward, even in college let alone in the big boy league, maybe I'm missing something.
            Actually Michigan State struggled a lot with guard play, particularly point guard play, due in part to injuries. There were games where he was the primary ballhandler on the team due to his passing ability. My NBA comparison in Anthony Mason. Undersized big but good handles and excellent passing, can make open shots. I think that there will be better players on the board, but I won't be that upset if we took him.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              Actually Michigan State struggled a lot with guard play, particularly point guard play, due in part to injuries. There were games where he was the primary ballhandler on the team due to his passing ability. My NBA comparison in Anthony Mason. Undersized big but good handles and excellent passing, can make open shots. I think that there will be better players on the board, but I won't be that upset if we took him.
              I always go by who players can guard, can he guard NBA 3s? I picture him banging in the post, maybe thats wrong. I always saw Mason as a backup 4 in NY, although he could play with Oakley at times.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post

                I would rather draft a Quincy Miller or Evan Fournier

                Me too! Both are players I like at #26. I'm surprised to see them drop this low in Ford's mock draft.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                  Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                  Is he an upgrade over Hansbrough at the 4?
                  I would have to say yes because Tyler has no intangibles with extremely limited scoring ability due to size/skill, while Green has all of the intangibles plus rebounding and probably limited scoring. Though I agree that he doesn't fill a need. Ideally I would like to see us get a 3rd big who is ready to put up at the bare minimum 10 and 5 off the bench, whether it be in trades, free agency, draft, whatever. We just need a talented x factor big man off the bench.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                    Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how Draymond Green would exactly give us that we need. Is he an upgrade over Hansbrough at the 4? Probably not. Can he consistently be our backup 3 behind Granger? Big maybe.
                    At this point I would consider him an upgrade over Hans if he can hit an open 15 footer and not be a black hole like Hans is on offense.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      At this point I would consider him an upgrade over Hans if he can hit an open 15 footer and not be a black hole like Hans is on offense.
                      He's a decent midrange shooter and he's a very good passer so in that sense he'd absolutely be an upgrade over Hansbrough. But he's significantly shorter and equally challenged athletically. Seems kind of like trading a rotten apple for 3/4 eaten pear.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                        Hopefully Pritchard can work his magic and get another 2nd rounder for cash, or something low. Mike Scott would probably end up being better scoring option for a b/u 4.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Give me Quincy Miller if the draft shakes out like this. Talent above all in the draft, even if Quincy only gives us a couple of highlight plays in Nov and Dec, he could be an interesting trade chip at the deadline this year.
                          Trade chip, if he shows any potential it would be worth keeping him, we need a star and I feel he has star potential.

                          Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
                          This mock sucks. Who in the world would take Bradley Beal, Thomas Robinson, and Harrison Barnes over MKG?
                          A lot of folks

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          To me drafting Miller at 26 is basically getting a chance at a Jonathan Bender do over and we don't have to trade Antonio Davis to do it.
                          Hopefully with a better turnout this time...

                          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                          Quincy Miller would have to be the pick.

                          I think Quincy Miller is a SF in my mind. He certainly needs to prove that he's past the knee injury and put on some muscle.
                          I think he is a SF, and with the size thing he is still pretty young, I actually think that he needs to add more strength, not sure that he will have to get much bigger if he is going to play the 3.

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          He isnt skilled enough yet he reminds me in so many ways of Aminu. Who as a rookie really didn't have a position offensively due to lack of ball handling. I think Quincy plays like a stretch 4 currently and defensively is a SF. But the player development staff could really help and in a few years I could see him playing either spot depending on the offense we run.


                          I just hope he gets his hops back cause watching this kids highlights pre ACL the dude was a monster.


                          Green I dont think is anything he wont be able to guard 3,4 or 5s imo. Offensively he can play wherever but defensively I dont see him having a position.
                          He was definitely a monster pre injury and had some good showings this year, I think he is a 3 hands down, I think him and Aminu are different players though, Aminu still has some upside but I doubt his long range shooting will ever improve to the point that it should I think Miller still has a good chance at adding that to his game, and I also think he has better handles than Aminu

                          Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
                          The risk is that we pass up on someone that we know is going to be good. Take the best player available not the player with the most potential.
                          Who do we know is going to be good, it is not like Miller has not shown he can be good, he has potential and some production, if he had as much production as you are seeming to suggest in the player that we should take he would be a top 10 pick

                          Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                          A guaranteed contract. Ideally we're picking someone here with potential to actually make the rotation, and not sit on the bench while he's on the team.
                          Hummmm, I assume some of you have never seen miller play...

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          People are really sleeping on Will Barton his upside is greater than what a lot of people think his talent is on par with Quincy Miller. I think he has 20ppg talent very dynamic I hope Bird picks him but I wouldnt be mad with Miller or a numer of people who went in the 30s in this mock.
                          Warming on Barton more, I always thought he had game but I am starting to get the feeling that his size will not be something that turns GMs off as much as it has in the past.

                          Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
                          I still want Khris Middleton. He has just as much potential as Miller and he is already better.
                          No he doesn't

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Hopefully Pritchard can work his magic and get another 2nd rounder for cash, or something low. Mike Scott would probably end up being better scoring option for a b/u 4.
                          Yup, I like O'Quinn more, especially if we go with a 1-3 in the first round
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                            Originally posted by Really? View Post
                            Trade chip, if he shows any potential it would be worth keeping him, we need a star and I feel he has star potential.



                            A lot of folks



                            Hopefully with a better turnout this time...



                            I think he is a SF, and with the size thing he is still pretty young, I actually think that he needs to add more strength, not sure that he will have to get much bigger if he is going to play the 3.



                            He was definitely a monster pre injury and had some good showings this year, I think he is a 3 hands down, I think him and Aminu are different players though, Aminu still has some upside but I doubt his long range shooting will ever improve to the point that it should I think Miller still has a good chance at adding that to his game, and I also think he has better handles than Aminu



                            Who do we know is going to be good, it is not like Miller has not shown he can be good, he has potential and some production, if he had as much production as you are seeming to suggest in the player that we should take he would be a top 10 pick



                            Hummmm, I assume some of you have never seen miller play...



                            Warming on Barton more, I always thought he had game but I am starting to get the feeling that his size will not be something that turns GMs off as much as it has in the past.



                            No he doesn't



                            Yup, I like O'Quinn more, especially if we go with a 1-3 in the first round
                            I dont know of Barton's past. I do know he is a cocky SOB and that is what I really like about him. He is confident and it shows with his play(he isnt selfish though he is a very willing passer. I have heard some GMs didnt like that. But I heard he came off well in interviews and some GMs came off loving his personality(Larry Bird had the same personalty as a player no one was better than him and Larry hates losing. I think Barton is just super competitive a Rondo like personality )


                            EDIT: I get he has a small frame but wtach him play he makes up for it with effort. He really is one of the guys who plays much bigger than his listed weight. He plays like he is 220 not 170. If he can put on 30lbs he will be one of the best scorers IMO he is a lot like Alec Burks for me in terms of upside. I think he can help right away but you are picking the guy for a few years down the road I think he will be a monster in a few years.


                            I do think Quincy's J is already better than Aminu but I see the same stiffness or should I say just doesnt know the game doesn't look like he was well coached. I guess a lot of that is due to Scott Drew (awful coach Baylor should fire him)


                            If I was in charge I would try my best to get Barton but Scott Machado would be a Pacer no matter what. If I couldn't add another pick I would add a scorer type in free agency along with a C hopefully Samuel Dalmbert (love his game as a backup for Roy)


                            Scott Machado instantly makes everyone on the Pacers better and he is a great offensive player in his own right. I think Granger and George would benefit the most from Machado along with big Roy. I just hope Larry gets this kid. Much better version of Kendall Marshall (much more dynamic than Marshall and IMO has a better floor game) just overlooked will make a lot of teams pay on draft night. If our player devlopment staff helps him with his weak right hand (easy fix) gonna be a scary pg.
                            Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-25-2012, 07:31 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              I dont know of Barton's past. I do know he is a cocky SOB and that is what I really like about him. He is confident and it shows with his play(he isnt selfish though he is a very willing passer. I have heard some GMs didnt like that. But I heard he came off well in interviews and some GMs came off loving his personality(Larry Bird had the same personalty as a player no one was better than him and Larry hates losing. I think Barton is just super competitive a Rondo like personality )


                              EDIT: I get he has a small frame but wtach him play he makes up for it with effort. He really is one of the guys who plays much bigger than his listed weight. He plays like he is 220 not 170. If he can put on 30lbs he will be one of the best scorers IMO he is a lot like Alec Burks for me in terms of upside. I think he can help right away but you are picking the guy for a few years down the road I think he will be a monster in a few years.


                              I do think Quincy's J is already better than Aminu but I see the same stiffness or should I say just doesnt know the game doesn't look like he was well coached. I guess a lot of that is due to Scott Drew (awful coach Baylor should fire him)
                              Yeah I think that is a reason why I am comfortable if we do select him, looking at more of his videos, he plays bigger than his size, hopefully he does not end up having durability issues.

                              Yeah I am not sure how Scott Drew keeps getting these long athletic stretch 4's, first PJIII, then Miller, and now Isaiah Austin, seems like he has not done much with any of them.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Chad Ford's 9.0

                                Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                                I would have to say yes because Tyler has no intangibles with extremely limited scoring ability due to size/skill, while Green has all of the intangibles plus rebounding and probably limited scoring. Though I agree that he doesn't fill a need. Ideally I would like to see us get a 3rd big who is ready to put up at the bare minimum 10 and 5 off the bench, whether it be in trades, free agency, draft, whatever. We just need a talented x factor big man off the bench.
                                I wouldn't say Tyler has no intangibles, as by all accounts, he's a hard worker and is always intense. The type of intensity that will push others in games and in practice. I have a hard time seeing Green as any better of a scorer than Tyler. Hansbrough was able to dominate the paint in college, did Green dominate anything? I saw Michigan State play quite a few times and never came away thinking that Green was an offensive force like I did with Psycho T.

                                I don't know. I feel like some people are selling Tyler short these days, and maybe rightfully so. However, I don't see Green as an upgrade at all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X