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

2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

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

  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

    This draft is loaded with SG, and most of the SF are in the 6'6" range with a few an 1" or 2" taller. I'm personally not interested in drafting a 6'6" wing to play SF. I want a SF in the range of Granger's size. I can't say I've seen any in this class that really shouts draft him at SF. Maybe 1 or 2 with slight interest. JMOAA

    Comment


    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

      I am enamored with the idea of giving up #23 plus our second rounders this year and next for the Mavs pick at 13.

      Their goal is to clear the salary of the #13 pick from the books to get a little extra money for an offer to Dwight. The question is whether the dropoff from pick #13 to pick #23 in the slotted salary scale saves them enough to make sense for them. They may just want a #1 next year plus multiple #2 picks.

      I know that next year's draft is better, but I'd do it in a heartbeat to get Dennis Schroeder at #13, or if he fell somehow, Cody Z (unlikely I know).
      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


      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        I am enamored with the idea of giving up #23 plus our second rounders this year and next for the Mavs pick at 13.
        Seems we like to wheel and deal with Texas teams of late, guess you never know.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          I am enamored with the idea of giving up #23 plus our second rounders this year and next for the Mavs pick at 13.

          Their goal is to clear the salary of the #13 pick from the books to get a little extra money for an offer to Dwight. The question is whether the dropoff from pick #13 to pick #23 in the slotted salary scale saves them enough to make sense for them. They may just want a #1 next year plus multiple #2 picks.

          I know that next year's draft is better, but I'd do it in a heartbeat to get Dennis Schroeder at #13, or if he fell somehow, Cody Z (unlikely I know).
          That would make the draft even more interesting. I think the Pacers are going to get a good player at 23 but at 13 they could get someone who might make a bigger difference sooner.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            I am enamored with the idea of giving up #23 plus our second rounders this year and next for the Mavs pick at 13.

            Their goal is to clear the salary of the #13 pick from the books to get a little extra money for an offer to Dwight. The question is whether the dropoff from pick #13 to pick #23 in the slotted salary scale saves them enough to make sense for them. They may just want a #1 next year plus multiple #2 picks.

            I know that next year's draft is better, but I'd do it in a heartbeat to get Dennis Schroeder at #13, or if he fell somehow, Cody Z (unlikely I know).


            As far as I'm concerned, Dallas is wasting their time trying to get Howard. Howard would be better off going to Houston where he has better players surrounding him, and a better chance of getting closer to winning a ring.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

              BIG fan of Allen Crabbe a 6'6 SG from Cal.. he has great form and can shoot the rock as well as anyone in this draft. A decent defender as well

              FWIW NOT a fan of Tony Mitchell.. He might be athletic with a nice dunk package, but is VERY raw and will need a lot of work

              Comment


              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                I just read the ESPN article on Cody Zeller.I gotta agree with the concerns the short arms and the shooting from the hip in traffic. Thorpe compared him to Patrick Patterson as a floor and I gotta agree. I see him playing a role in the NBA a lot like Pat. However I think Pat is a much better defender than Cody will be.

                I am ready for the draft. I have watched most of the guys in espn top 100 prospects and have a good feel for what we can get in this draft. Any way you slice it a pretty good prospect will be there when we pick.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                  Originally posted by habart30 View Post
                  BIG fan of Allen Crabbe a 6'6 SG from Cal.. he has great form and can shoot the rock as well as anyone in this draft. A decent defender as well

                  FWIW NOT a fan of Tony Mitchell.. He might be athletic with a nice dunk package, but is VERY raw and will need a lot of work
                  green? He is an awful defender.


                  Agree on Mitchell in a sense.Yes he needs a ton of work, however there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Also he was so mis used this year. The new coach and the siuation just wasn't good all around. I was just happy to hear he never quit on his team. I know a lot of players would of in that scenario. He is a lot smarter player than he gets credit for. He has all the tools he just has to put it together. Kind of like Lance in college Tony would play hard one half and the next he wouldn't even try. Not gonna lie if Donnie is running the draft I would be kind of shocked if we passed on Tony. He is a Donnie type of player. I would strongly be for that pick/ But you are correct he certainly wouldn't be ready from day one for the NBA.


                  Richard Howell is a guy who would be a day one backup PF for us. I love his toughness and his heart. He is just a smarter Tyler. I hope he goes UD would love him as a really cheap backup next year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    I am enamored with the idea of giving up #23 plus our second rounders this year and next for the Mavs pick at 13.

                    Their goal is to clear the salary of the #13 pick from the books to get a little extra money for an offer to Dwight. The question is whether the dropoff from pick #13 to pick #23 in the slotted salary scale saves them enough to make sense for them. They may just want a #1 next year plus multiple #2 picks.

                    I know that next year's draft is better, but I'd do it in a heartbeat to get Dennis Schroeder at #13, or if he fell somehow, Cody Z (unlikely I know).
                    If Caldwell-Pope is there I would trade up for him(he is about the only player). I almost wouldn't care what we gave up to get him. He will be a difference maker in the league.


                    Schroeder I have only seen in an allstar game. He did look like the best guard on the floor with Dante Exum and the Harrison brothers playing quite a feat. I love the speed and length he plays with. Ford said that is the best week of ball he has ever played; So basing it on that sample size is scary. I do love the tools. You can't teach that defensive potential and that length speed combo. I am all for a defensive player who can guard quicks ( i *****ed about that all season G3 can't guard quicks even like Norris Cole)and Schroeder at worse will be that. His tools are defiantly much better for the NBA than Euro there is no doubt about that. He is probably excited he never has to play that style. It doesn't look like it fits him.
                    Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-05-2013, 02:48 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                      If Caldwell-Pope is there I would trade up for him(he is about the only player). I almost wouldn't care what we gave up to get him. He will be a difference maker in the league.
                      I agree he can be a difference maker however he is not much better offensively than Allen Crabbe who will be available around our slot. Pope is more athletic but struggles at the rim and is a loose ball handler. He is a difference maker on defense... Pope is great in passing lanes and has quick hands, but unless the price is right I don't think we should trade up for him.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                        Originally posted by habart30 View Post
                        I agree he can be a difference maker however he is not much better offensively than Allen Crabbe who will be available around our slot. Pope is more athletic but struggles at the rim and is a loose ball handler. He is a difference maker on defense... Pope is great in passing lanes and has quick hands, but unless the price is right I don't think we should trade up for him.
                        and Caldwell Pope is 100x the rebounder(that is hyperbole but i think Pope is still a much better rebounder he gets a lot more contested boards than Crabbe) and 100X the defender Crabbe will ever be. Pope is a game changer on both ends he is gonna be a good one for a long time. He would likely supplant Lance as the starter in a year or so, and make our bench that much better. I don't normally advocate trading up, but if we can do it for a fair deal I would be all over it. The question is what is a fair deal to the Mavs.


                        Also I believe Pope will get better off the dribble he has some great tools. his first step is elite and he glides side to side. His lane agility proved what the tape showed he is a monster side to side and really in general his quickness is off the charts.(so many of these wings in this draft move so freaking well. McLemore, Oladipo, Pope the list goes on)

                        He does stand around a lot on offense, but I think that is correctable. What separates this kid from other wings who will be there in the 20s.(Oladipo and Ben have this trait too)Is just his motor and he always seems to come up with a key board or a key steal at the right time. I just love this kids toughness and the way he plays the game of basketball. I love watching him play defense it is a thing of beauty.


                        I think he is on the same level prospect wise as Brad Beal minus Beal's strength(which he can work on). He is quicker than Beal though. They both have the issue have a weak handle. Beal did struggle early. However his handle improved so much throughout last season it was remarkable. He really started to figure the game out. I think Pope can be the same way he has the tools to have a really good handle and penetration to attack the rim at will. I think the wing spot is so deep this year. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3 listed above play in a all star game.

                        The one thing i don't know about Pope is his character. Beal's is reportedly off the charts. Pope seems like a good kid and he plays so hard I can't imagine him not working at the game. With a jumper like his you have to put in long hours.
                        Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-05-2013, 05:31 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                          He's not a prospect, well not anymore, but guess it can go here I guess.

                          You guys hear about Devonta Pollard from Alabama? Freshman last year, McDonald's AA, top 30 recruit, strong pro chances eventually. So what's he do? He and his family orchestrate a kidnapping plot over some kind of land dispute, picked up some 8 year old girl and eventually just left her in a field. I'm just gonna blame it on the SEC.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                            #23 plus 2014 2nd rounder to Dallas for #13,

                            then

                            #13 plus 2013 2nd rounder to Portland for #10.

                            then the Pacers draft Cody Zeller.

                            The 2013-2014 season becomes sold out in seven days, we have a Tyler Hansbrough replacement, and we have a 3 year understudy for David West.

                            /wakes up to alarm (IU fight song)
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 06-05-2013, 06:21 PM.
                            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


                            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                              Walsh said he didn't take Lance when he ran the Knicks because of the NY kid pressure. I kind of think he would use the same approach with Zeller. If Oladpo is available then it's a different story.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                I just read the ESPN article on Cody Zeller.I gotta agree with the concerns the short arms and the shooting from the hip in traffic. Thorpe compared him to Patrick Patterson as a floor and I gotta agree. I see him playing a role in the NBA a lot like Pat. However I think Pat is a much better defender than Cody will be.

                                I am ready for the draft. I have watched most of the guys in espn top 100 prospects and have a good feel for what we can get in this draft. Any way you slice it a pretty good prospect will be there when we pick.
                                I am curious how you would rank your picks at 23 that might be there and fit with the Pacers. I really like what Mitchell brings to the table.
                                He would play power forward and replace Hans and not have the limitations that Tyler has. Plus he is another power player to guard Lebron. I would go Mitchell,Dieng,Rice,Bullock, and then Withey. One or several of those players will be there. In the second McCallum.
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X