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:
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

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

Life After Granger? Looks familiar

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Life After Granger? Looks familiar

    Wrote this myself, so no link. Have plenty sitting on my computer, just trying to hook up a blog site to post them on. But basically, my viewpoint.

    Life After Granger Looks A Lot Like Life With Granger

    The Indiana Pacers entered the 2012-2013 season with a legitimate shot at winning the Central division. Since Derrick Rose was out indefinitely, their main competition for that spot was a bit hobbled. They brought in a few pieces to upgrade their bench (Gerald Green, DJ Augustin and Ian Mahimni) as that was the Achilles heel in plenty of their losses. Entering preseason without star Danny Granger, hopes were that it was just his usual preseason setback and we would be good to go by seasons start. Yet, on the eve of opening night, Danny Granger was declared OUT indefinitely, with a knee injury. The panic button started flashing red, waiting for Pacer fans to act accordingly. Five games in, the panic button has been smashed through the floor, but for the very wrong reasons.
    Donít get me wrong, Danny Granger is and has been a huge part of the success Indiana had last year, and oftentimes the lone bright spot on some pretty terrible teams. But his loss isnít the biggest problem, and if you look closely, through 5 games, the Pacers are suffering through the same exact problems that they faced last year. Grangers 18 point per game average isnít exactly ďeasyĒ to replace. The Pacers, under Frank Vogel, normally ride the hot hand, and to be completely honest, running the offense through Granger wasnít the most efficient option either. His guaranteed 15-20 points will be missed, but with West another year removed from his ACL tear, Roy Hibbert peaking, and Paul George looking to turn the corner, itís realistic that a bump in all of their stats could help lessen the blow. So, not having Grangers 18 PPG still hurts a little, but I beg someone to tell me how Granger affects the following:

    In the game vs the Atlanta Hawks, the Pacers started well, but got down in the 3rd quarter. Down big, they stormed back, scoring 18 straight at one point to take a nice double digit lead going into the 4th. Just when all the fans, took a huge deep sigh of relief, the Atlanta Hawks stormed back in the 4th with an 18-0 run to match Indianaís run in the 3rd quarter, holding Indiana to 9 points in the quarter. If anyone recalls last yearís Pacers team, with Danny Granger, a 5-7minute scoring drought in every game was almost a given and that has carried over into this year. The proof is in the pudding: Spurs game- Basket scored with 1:20 left in the 1st quarter, next basket scored with 6:52 left in the 2nd. Kings game- 2nd quarter bucket was scored at 7:20, next point scored at 3:05. As far as last year, pick a game out a hat, and thereís probably a big scoring drought. I think the points clear here. Whether in a blowout or a 1 pt game, a Pacers scoring drought is bound to happen; the only thing you could hope, as a Pacer and a Pacers fan, was that it didnít happen at a crucial moment of the game.

    Defensively, the Pacers are one of the best and stingiest teams in the league, except when it comes to small, quick guards. With teams sending out smaller guards every year, itís a huge mismatch for Indiana, even though one of their better defenders plays the SG. The problem? Paul George is now 6í10, maybe 6í11 and guarding someone thatís 6 to 7 inches shorter than you, is a huge mismatch when it comes to speed and quickness. Regardless of how good a defender, youíd have to be amazingly quick at 6Ď10 to even keep up with them, which isnít necessarily Paul Georgeís strength. So when you have guards like Kemba Walker (30 points), Marcus Thornton (26 points), Kyle Lowry (21 points) and Kyle Korver (13 points, but fueled the 4th quarter run), Indiana is at an automatic disadvantage. Now, I understand Lowry isnít a 2 guard, and Korverís not small and ďquickĒ but they both fit the mold for the type of players Indiana has difficulty guarding. George Hill struggles guarding quicker PGs and everyone on the team struggles defending players running off screens. Outside of getting the run around by smaller guards this year, our pick and roll defense is by far the worst Iíve seen. It turned Glen Davis into a playoff star last year, and has almost been a guaranteed score against Indiana this year as well. The philosophy is common but the execution: poor. All of our big men are very slow footed, so when they have to show on pick and rolls, it takes them a split second too long to get back to their defender. I think this also has to do with our guards not being able to or not willing to fight through screens.

    Lastly, is the Pacers offensive execution. The final possession against Atlanta resembles Indiana every time they come up the court. With or without Granger, Indiana doesnít make an attacking move until 10 or 11 seconds are left on the shot clock. Often time, itís George Hill dribbling at the top of the key until the clock counts down to 11. Then itís another three seconds of Indiana attempting an entry pass or multiple ball fakes to the post. Weíve now got Indiana, with only one pass in the possession, with 8 seconds left on the clock and absolutely nothing setup. This happened last year WITH Granger and the same exact things are happening without. I figured Brian Shaw would have more of an impact on the Pacersí offense, but that doesnít seem to be the case. The stagnant offense and scoring droughts are tied directly to the Pacers inability or refusal, to start their offense earlier, which would give them better and more looks at the basket. This is also the reason why we have been, and are again, one of the worst assisting teams in the league. Assists are easy buckets, and easy buckets are what Indiana does not get. I also imagine a rise in assist numbers would minimize the scoring droughts.

    So sure, Danny Grangers out, and itís a pretty big deal for Indiana. Is it a perfect chance for Paul George to step up? Sure is. Is it an opportunity for Hibbert to become dominant. Absolutely. Is there an open door to have a more flexible, less predictable offense? Without a doubt. But none of these things happening, yet. We have to keep in mind, Indiana is only 7 or 8 days removed from learning that Granger would be out for a long time. Give them some time to adjust and hit a groove, which I believe they will. But while people are talking about panicking because Granger is gone, you must ask: will he be able to defend smaller, quicker guards? Will he stop the scoring droughts that have been the norm since Frank Vogel took over? Will he get his team in more efficient offensive sets? The answer is no. These three problems are much more of an issue than missing Granger, because when Granger comes back, every single one of these issues, will still be an issue.

    Solutions? Very simple and probably unpopular. Move Paul George to the SF. It leaves for better matchups defensively, as he will be guarding wings more his size. He may be outweighed by some forwards, but that you deal with. Make a roster spot for free agent Delonte West. Sure, heís a nutcase. But Iím of believe that every team needs at least one nutcase to keep them on edge; but that is besides the fact. Delonte West is an excellent defender, and can guard 1s, 2s and smaller threes. It would be a great addition from a basketball standpoint, allowing him, George Hill and DJ Augustin to rotate between the point and 2 guard spots. Gerald Green continues to come off the bench, where he is better suited. Lance Stephenson has been a pleasant surprise, providing a spark in games for Indiana, making great passes and attacking the basket. In my scenario, Delonte would step in as the starting 2 guard once he is acclimated enough with the defense. Thereís nothing to learn on the offensive side, so he wonít be far behind there either. Delonte isnít a player that can put a team over the top, but he improves a glaring area of weakness, immediately, and with the Central division up for grabs, I make the move.

  • #2
    Re: Life After Granger? Looks familiar

    Solutions? Trade for this Collison guy from Dallas.

    Sorry to annoy you...not very helpful, but I'm pissed to say the least.


    • #3
      Re: Life After Granger? Looks familiar

      Nice article PG-24.

      Not sure about the last paragragh. I'd rather see if Lance can step up then take a risk on Delonte. Lance has more upside and possibly less headcase issues

      This paragraph is excellent. I truly don't understand why we don't start our offense more quickly.
      Often time, it’s George Hill dribbling at the top of the key until the clock counts down to 11. Then it’s another three seconds of Indiana attempting an entry pass or multiple ball fakes to the post. We’ve now got Indiana, with only one pass in the possession, with 8 seconds left on the clock and absolutely nothing setup. This happened last year WITH Granger and the same exact things are happening without. I figured Brian Shaw would have more of an impact on the Pacers’ offense, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The stagnant offense and scoring droughts are tied directly to the Pacers inability or refusal, to start their offense earlier, which would give them better and more looks at the basket.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." óKevin Pritchard press conference


      • #4
        Re: Life After Granger? Looks familiar

        Interesting thoughts but I'm not sure I agree with your analysis

        Your contention I think is that the Pacers' struggles are 1) due to getting killed by quick guards; and 2) stagnant offense, and that Danny Granger couldn't have helped with either. On the first point, the Pacers' defense seems just fine in the macro sense (we're actually 6th in the league in defensive efficiency - 9th if you're looking at opponent PPG), and I'd blame Kyle Lowry and Kemba Walker going off more on George Hill's bad hip than anything else. Thornton and Korver, on the other hand, shot poor percentages, so it was ok for the Pacers' defense to let them shoot.

        The real problem is that the Pacers haven't been able to score, which brings us to your second point. Our offense looks ugly true, but it was that way last year too, when our offensive efficiency was 7th in the league. In short, our offense was ugly but effective last year. This year though, our offensive efficiency has plummeted to 27th (out of 30). In other words, our offense is just plain ugly now.

        So the question to ask is, what made our offense effective last year but changed this year? I'd point to 2 indicators - turnovers and FT rate. Last year, our offense was built on getting to the line, offensive rebounding, and protecting the ball. It shouldn't surprise that we ranked 2nd, 5th, and 7th respectively, at FT ratio, offensive rebounding, and turnovers. This year, we're still a strong o-reb team (6th in the league), but our FT ratio and turnovers have fallen off precipitously (20th and 28th, respectively). And yes, we're still a bad shooting team.

        On turnovers, part of it is because we have 7 new players on the roster. If you dive deeper in the numbers though, you'd see that a huge chunk of turnovers are coming from Paul George (4.2 TO/game) and Gerald Green (2.4 TO/game). For reference, Danny averaged 1.8 TOs last year, and Paul himself averaged just 1.8 too in a lesser role. Clearly this is an effect of Danny's absence - George and Green are being force-fed Danny's role, and they are totally unprepared for it.

        Free throws are another issue. Granger has a reputation of being a shooter, but he actually has a very nice FTA rate, averaging 4.7 FTA last year. In comparison, George and Green are each averaging 1.6 FTA/game. It doesn't help that Roy Hibbert's rate has also fallen. The Pacers aren't getting to the line, and IMO this means less pressure on the defense, and I think that's why our 3P% is so bad right now.

        So sorry, I don't see how Delonte is going to help much. What we really need IMO is another player who can be lead scorer and who can get to the line. Unfortunately, these guys tend to be stars or quasi-stars (think guys like Gallo or Monta Ellis), so it won't be easy to acquire them. The Pistons' Stuckey actually fits this description as well - with Detroit's bad start, he could become available should Detroit decide to go full tanking mode. I wouldn't count on it though. Hoping for Lance to improve seems as good a plan as any, along with hoping Paul George starts turning into a player more like Granger on offense.
        Last edited by wintermute; 11-09-2012, 12:24 PM.


        • #5
          Re: Life After Granger? Looks familiar

          Delonte West is not the solution. Hes far from it.

          We deal with what we have. Dallas is doing fine without their star player...we got to do the same.
          "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.