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

Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 FINAL, POST 1 UPDATED

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

  • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

    Now that the future has been decided and the "Queens" (as Shaq so lovingly referred to them back in his thinner days) are staying in Sacramento, it's time to clean up the mess of a roster that has been running in place for the past several seasons. Changing the culture of this team is a must. Selfish, me-first players have dominated this roster, and while talented, you don't win with too many of them. Our first round pick of Cody Zeller was a step in the right direction, and he should be able to fit in nicely with Boogie Cousins in the frontcourt while representing the franchise and the community very well.

    I will not bother with a roster breakdown for a second round pick, because we are just looking to identify guys who could stick in the league at this point. With the 36th pick in the 2013 NBA Draft, the Sacramento Kings select: Andre Roberson, small forward from the University of Colorado. We are serious about changing the culture around here, and Roberson is a guy who comes in, plays with energy and a constantly running motor. He's not a huge threat offensively, but we have enough guys who need shots to be effective. Roberson brings us a wing off the bench who can defend, rebound, and bring energy to the lineup.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

      btowncolt... I'm offering 41 and 60 to move up to 37. Are you interested?

      edit: I'll even throw in a pound of ZBo's finest weed.
      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

        I had forgotten that btowncolt said he may not be back in time for this pick. He's probably still away.

        Pacersalltheway, do you want this pick (Pistons)?

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

          Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
          I had forgotten that btowncolt said he may not be back in time for this pick. He's probably still away.

          Pacersalltheway, do you want this pick (Pistons)?
          Yes

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

            With the 37th pick in the 2013 NBA Draft, the Detroit Pistons select: Archie Goodwin, shooting guard from the University of Kentucky.

            "We love his upside. We believe he can develop into a very good player for us."

            Deeper exaplanation coming....
            Last edited by Pacersalltheway10; 06-20-2013, 07:44 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

              Just in case there's any confusion: Wizards (cdash) on the clock.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                I know I'm past the time limit, and I'm a little drunk (so I'm right on par with most NBA GMs), but with the 38th pick in the 2013 NBA Draft, the Washington Bullets select CJ Leslie, small forward from North Carolina State University.

                While there is a need for wings on this roster, we drafted Leslie with the mindset he was the best player left on the board. There are plenty of holes in his game, but we blame that in part on the horrendous coaching he received at NC State.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                  Talk about an uninspiring slow and boring thread! I've seen women go into labor and have babies quicker than it takes to get a poster playing GM to make a pick. Some must they are being paid by the hour to make a pick.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                    I hereby abdicate the 76ers' 42th pick. Unfortunately, something has come up and I will be unable to fulfill my duties as GM. My apologies for the inconvenience. Please replace me with someone who knows what they're doing. Thanks.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                      Again, I introduce you to the 2013-2014 Portland Trail Blazers...

                      C - Meyers Leonard / Joel Freeland
                      PF - LaMarcus Aldridge /
                      SF - Nicolas Batum / Victor Claver / Will Barton
                      SG - Wesley Matthews / Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (#10) / Sasha Pavlovic
                      PG - Damian Lillard /

                      Eeesh.

                      Center would obviously be a position of need, especially a defensive oriented center. The problem of course is that Colton Iverson and DeWayne Dedmon don't really fit the bill. So, perhaps a power forward could be found here.

                      Erik Murphy could have a little Matt Bonner in him, but we could also just re-sign our 6th Man of the Year vote-getter if we really wanted to go that direction. Trevor Mbakwe long and can rebound on both sides of the floor but he can't shoot and tends to disappear. Seems like less of a problem from a 2nd rounder who might fit in with 4 starters needing touches. On top of all that, he's old and has demonstrated a lack of maturity... not a great combination. Brandon Davies has some interesting tools but this seems a little early for him.

                      With the 39th pick in the 2013 PD Mock Draft, the Portland Trail Blazers select:

                      JACKIE CARMICHAEL

                      Carmichael must work on his shooting, one area of his game that hasn't developed over his years in college. But he has nice touch around the rim, decent passer, good rebounder and shot blocker. His post defense is solid. Perimeter defense needs work. Seems like if we're going to take a flyer on a PF at this stage, Carmichael is as good as anyone.


                      So... what else do we need? A backup PG perhaps. Myck Kabongo is on the board and while our PR team would have loads of fun planning Matthew Myckonaughey’s KaBongos Night, he just hasn’t impressed us. Both Pierre Jackson and Phil Pressey have positives but I tend to feel are too short.

                      On our radar, we have Lorenzo Brown, Ray McCallum and Nate Wolters. Lorenzo Brown had a disappointing season, but the little improvement we did see was as a creator for others (and which is something we’re tremendously interested in). He’s also 6’5” and long which could negate some of his defensive issues but doesn’t seem to help his issues finishing buckets. As with Leslie, he hasn’t had the best of coaches to properly develop him. Drafting Ray McCallum means you’re mostly drafting on what you hope he can become and not what he’s demonstrated. He has playmaking potential and plenty of potential off the bounce, but it’s hard to tell if he’ll ever make the leap. He’s also smaller than we anticipated so that doesn’t shade his shortcomings. It’s hard to tell if Nate Wolters is an NBA player or not. He clearly has excellent ballhandling, playmaking skills and his height is an advantage, too. But defensively he could be way overmatched. He has to get stronger and hopefully develop enough laterally to not be a complete embarrassment.

                      And so, ultimately, with the 40th pick in the 2013 PD Mock Draft, the Portland Trail Blazers select:

                      NATE WOLTERS

                      At #40 with Canaan the last relatively competent PG prospect off the board, everyone has major holes so the risk is about the same. Wolters has something resembling an elite-level skill (playmaking) and we need non-Lillard creators.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                        Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                        I hereby abdicate the 76ers' 42th pick. Unfortunately, something has come up and I will be unable to fulfill my duties as GM. My apologies for the inconvenience. Please replace me with someone who knows what they're doing. Thanks.
                        Since LG33 is politely requesting unreasonably demanding someone who knows what they're doing, I'd like to nominate our PD Mock Draft Commissioner Emeritus OakMoses (if he's still around) to take over Philadelphia's GM position. Unless someone earlier was in line to step in to a vacant spot... in which case, carry on.
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                          Everyone who asked for an extra pick earlier has already got one, so no line.
                          This one is free for all.

                          If Oak wants it, he's welcome to it. Or anyone else.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Talk about an uninspiring slow and boring thread! I've seen women go into labor and have babies quicker than it takes to get a poster playing GM to make a pick. Some must they are being paid by the hour to make a pick.
                            Or maybe paid by the hour to, you know, work at a different job that ISN'T GM of a franchise? And then, sleep so they are ABLE to do that job?

                            Frankly, I'm thinking this has been one of the best mock drafts I've seen precisely because the long time between picks has allowed so many different people to participate. In some previous ones, the thread goes quickly but everyone falls off the clock and the same people end up picking for all the teams.

                            I think it is a GREAT thread.
                            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: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Or maybe paid by the hour to, you know, work at a different job that ISN'T GM of a franchise? And then, sleep so they are ABLE to do that job?

                              Frankly, I'm thinking this has been one of the best mock drafts I've seen precisely because the long time between picks has allowed so many different people to participate. In some previous ones, the thread goes quickly but everyone falls off the clock and the same people end up picking for all the teams.

                              I think it is a GREAT thread.
                              For starting as late as we did, I'm honestly surprised we've made it this far so quickly. We still have seven days to complete 20 picks so at this stage there is no rush. Hackashaq has done an excellent job.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                                Memphis Grizzlies

                                PG - Conley, Wroten
                                SG - Allen (U),
                                SF - Prince, Daye, Pondexter (QO)
                                PF - Randolph, Arthur
                                C - Gasol, Davis, Lauer (QO)

                                This will be an interesting off-season. Our main priority is to keep Tony Allen, but he could get too expensive really quick. We aren't strapped for cash but we will not cross over the LT. We have $59.7M committed this upcoming season. With three draft picks in the second round we get to fill three roster spots cheaply.

                                I am assuming we will:

                                1. Resign Allen. We anticipate giving him a deal north of the MLE, but not more than about $7M per year based on our other guys' contract situations. If Allen is looking for too much money, we may let him walk. I'm targetting a deal at 3 year, $22.575M ($7M @ 7.5%). We could let Allen walk if he gets too much interest as we will have the full MLE at our disposal and it fits within our salary constraints. Brandon Rush would be a target for us as we believe we could sign him for less than the MLE and it may allow us to fill our 15th roster spot.

                                2. We will sign Daye ($4.1M) and Lauer ($1.1M) to their QO's. If either get signed for more than those figures, we walk away. I really like Daye. He is a long and tall SF who can shoot. I think he can really mesh with the front court well as he develops more. His body continues to get more NBA durable. I would like to sign Daye to a smaller deal than the $4.1M and for more years, but I don't feel comfortable letting him hit the UFA market with teams knowing we will be in a crunch to sign Allen anyway. Lauer we see as a cheap fifth big and it's more about how small his contract is than anything.

                                3. Bayless has a PO at $3.1M and we fully expect him to exercise his option and test free agency. We do not foresee resigning him.

                                So the Grizzlies are contending every year for a championship. We feel that our front court is a significant strength. We have a very good four man rotation up front. We love Conley and feel that our biggest needs are on the wings with Prince and Allen both getting older. Wroten is a long developmental PG who we really like. We would look to maintain some size on the perimeter as it fits our roster make-up. We have Pondexter and most likely Daye as backups on the wings, so we are looking at a developmental wing that we think with a better training regiment that focuses on his quickness and diet, he could become a larger SG with a body for the NBA. He lit up the Big Ten last year to the tune of almost 20 ppg. We feel he will begin getting playing time once he fully understands the defensive assignments and priorities of our coaching staff.

                                With the 41st selection in the 2013 NBA Draft, the Memphis Grzzlies select Deshaun Thomas, The Old Sh/tty University.
                                Last edited by pacergod2; 06-21-2013, 11:19 AM.
                                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X