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

Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

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

  • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I.E. you think he will fall into a "bad crowd" if he's back home where he knows everyone?
    Yes, but that's just what I have heard.

    But I also heard Dakich say the same thing a few days ago.

    Comment


    • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      Nothing you've said here demonstrates any flaw in wintermute's logic, only that you've failed to grasp his point.

      His point is that Mackey Rose's reasoning is tautological. That is, it's true by definition. If you judge a player's draft stock by where he's ultimately selected, then no player's draft stock could be significantly higher -- or lower -- than the number they're selected at.

      We could apply this same reasoning to Perry Jones, III, and conclude that his stock was even lower than Plumlee's. After all, he was drafted after Plumlee. If teams were that high on him, he wouldn't have lasted until pick 28.

      Mackey Rose's attempted point failed in another way...

      Theoretically, any single-pick team, 1-25, could've had Plumlee as high as #2 on their big board (and two-pick teams, as high as #3, etc.), but as long as their top selection was available, would've passed on him.

      For example, New Orleans' top three could've been Anthony Davis, Austin Rivers, and Miles Plumlee, but, since Davis and Rivers were still available when the Hornets were on the clock, they were the selections at #1 and #10. I don't believe this, obviously, but you get the point.

      Anyway, all of this is just rhetoric. All I know is that, according to many reports, Plumlee was so impressive in workouts that multiple teams picking as high as the early 20's were giving him serious consideration. Knowing this, I don't see how anyone can say the Pacers reached for him at #26. You may not like the pick personally, and certain mock drafts may have been misinformed, but the 20's to 30's is where his draft stock had risen to, apparently.
      so by this logic if miles plumlee was selected #1 overall nobody would have thought anything wrong with it because well golly gee he was selected #1 overall so he must be worth it and nobody would have laughed their asses off at new orleans

      Comment


      • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

        I do feel kind of bad for the kid (kid, the dude's gonna be freakin 24 before he suits up, ugh), it's not his fault he got picked where he did. Everyone'll root for the kid and hope for him to succeed, but Jesus, what a monumentally bad pick.

        Comment


        • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

          Originally posted by TheDon View Post
          so by this logic if miles plumlee was selected #1 overall nobody would have thought anything wrong with it because well golly gee he was selected #1 overall so he must be worth it and nobody would have laughed their asses off at new orleans
          Umm ... no.

          At #1, no one would have passed on him, and the argument is that if people passed on him he is somehow bad. The reverse is that if no one passed on him he is good. Neither of those is true, and they are entirely unrelated to one another.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            There is not a sole on this planet who can convince me that Miles Plumlee was a good pick. I've read enough of this "it's the 26th pick in the draft!!!" **** already.
            I agree.

            Good person, probably. Capable of making an NBA squad and helping, who knows. But you can't invest so much stock in one guy that you become afraid to wait and end up overpaying. Let him go if someone else wants to overpay and just learn to live with the good deal you get instead. There's plenty of ways to skin this cat.

            Comment


            • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              There is not a sole on this planet who can convince me that Miles Plumlee was a good pick. I've read enough of this "it's the 26th pick in the draft!!!" **** already.
              i get your point. but there is a soul that can change your mind. and that's Miles Plumlee his ownself.

              If he shows up as Jeff Foster 2.0, it'll be a great pick. Josh McRoberts 2.0, not so great. personally I'm hoping he becomes Dale Davis 2.0.

              Comment


              • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                I think it is funny that so many of you seem to think you know so much more about what the team needs than Larry Bird. He sees something in Plumlee, so I'm willing to see how it plays out. And it was the 26th pick, you were expecting an All-Star?

                Comment


                • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                  Everyone will be rooting for him, but not for the idiot who picked him at that spot. At least move back a few spaces for a second or SOMETHING. I hope he turns out amazing, if he doesn't he will be forever "that historically terrible pick" his entire career. And it isn't even his fault.
                  Senior at the University of Louisville.
                  Greenfield ---> The Ville

                  Comment


                  • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                    Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                    i get your point. but there is a soul that can change your mind. and that's Miles Plumlee his ownself.

                    If he shows up as Jeff Foster 2.0, it'll be a great pick. Josh McRoberts 2.0, not so great. personally I'm hoping he becomes Dale Davis 2.0.
                    First thing I saw in him was Hands Bro 2.0. I hope he ends up Dale Davis 2.0
                    Senior at the University of Louisville.
                    Greenfield ---> The Ville

                    Comment


                    • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Umm ... no.

                      At #1, no one would have passed on him, and the argument is that if people passed on him he is somehow bad. The reverse is that if no one passed on him he is good. Neither of those is true, and they are entirely unrelated to one another.
                      I do agree with Bill on this point, applied here or elsewhere. If the debate is whether his value was 26 or lower than 26, the fact that someone at 19 passed on him doesn't enter into it.

                      We can't know for sure that 20 other teams wouldn't have bought pick 28 to get him if he was on the board, but we can know what the pre-draft market price appeared to be for him and it was very consistently much lower than the price the Pacers paid.

                      The whole "it's on the 26th pick" angle cuts both ways. If he's only the 26th pick, then so what if you skip him and get "stuck" with some other 27-29th best guy when someone beats you to Plumlee later. You say "oh well, it was only Plumlee, it wasn't going to make or break our team and the price was definitely too high at 26".


                      The blue book on the car is 10,000. Paying 17000 because you really really want it is not smart. That's a terrible way to maximize your money, and in a world where every team is limited to the same range of cash/draft pick value it's terrible business to overpay. This was my complaint about the Hans pick as well, especially given the value/price ratio on a bunch of other picks still on the board that night. Larry can't fall in love with a specific plan, even basic roto sports players learn that lesson in their first few drafts.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                        Originally posted by Steagles View Post
                        First thing I saw in him was Hands Bro 2.0. I hope he ends up Dale Davis 2.0
                        If tyler had plumlee's size, he'd be a pretty good player.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Only on PD is the 26th pick treated like it's the end of the world. By reading the stuff posted here yesterday and today, you'd think we whiffed on the number 5 pick with several sure-thing NBA caliber players left on the board.

                          I wasn't excited about the pick either and wish we would have picked Teague, but good lord there has been some overreaction here.
                          For my part, it was just the thought of, "Leave it to the Pacers to underwhelm us all with the selection, and by God they managed to find a way even when I was already expecting that Green kid." It just disappoints me when this kind of thing happens.

                          I've come down a bit since I've heard more, read more, learned more about who he is and what they all seem to feel he can be, and at least now I'm actually slightly preferable to this guy than Green simply because I hate the idea of an even shorter, less athletic PF than Tyler freakin' Hansbrough (even though he is apparently more skilled than Tyler), but the things they say about this kid's lack of skills concerns me terribly, too.

                          I need to see him play. That's what it really comes down to with me. I need to see if he looks like he has a clue, if he can catch, if he can pass at all, if he can shoot at all, if he can finish strong, set good picks, defend well, rebound, etc. I just need to judge for myself when he's going up against NBA guys.

                          I acknowledge that they picked him for a reason, but I also have these numerous red flags waiving left and right in my mind about this pick (workout wonder vs. production in college, underwhelming college career even after 4 years / his age, not a college starter, relative anonymity even though a USA player, vast majority of mocks didn't have him even sniffing 1st round). It just leaves a lot to be desired, particularly when at least one guy was dropping who many believed should have been scooped up earlier than he eventually was.

                          I also understand that the draft looks a LOT different once you put some distance between it and today, so I'm not exactly ready to jump off of a ledge, either.

                          Just let me watch the kid play; that's the only thing that will make any difference either way.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                            Those two seem to hate each other.
                            They do?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                              Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                              so by this logic if miles plumlee was selected #1 overall nobody would have thought anything wrong with it because well golly gee he was selected #1 overall so he must be worth it and nobody would have laughed their asses off at new orleans
                              How do you figure?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Let's talk about Miles Plumlee

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                The blue book on the car is 10,000. Paying 17000 because you really really want it is not smart.
                                I agree with you, Seth, except for this part. Not wanting to trading down from #26 to #29 or even #32 or #33 (illustrated by their purchase of #35) is more like saying, "there are a number of cars on the lot priced around 10k. I need a 4x4 and even though this one here has bald tires and doesn't drive worth crap in the rain, I'm gonna bid 11k because it's got low miles, a beefy tranny, and I'm gonna put big, knobby tires on it and it'll drive great in the mud on my farm."


                                "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                                - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X