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

Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

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

  • Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-chat-w...gham-11152012/


    Cain

    Is Frank Vogel’s seat starting to get a little hot in Indiana?

    Joel Brigham

    I hope not, because I really do think Frank is a solid young coach. Believe it or not, losing Danny Granger was a massive stomach punch to those guys. I talked to both Paul George and Roy Hibbert last weekend about how everyone took the news and they were devastated just talking about it. George even went on to admit that they’re having a hard time adjusting offensively when that big an offensive presence just no longer is part of the team. I think that injury shell-shocked them a bit, and I think they’re a young team feeling the pressure of high expectations. It’s a long season, and they’re going to get better. There are some very good players here, after all. But I’m not selling Vogel yet. He’s a smart guy, and I’m anxious to see how he gets his boys out of their funk.

    ballhog

    All this Paul George breakout seemed a little premature to me. Now with Granger out all those people begging to trade him to give George the SF spot must be kicking them selves. He looks awful in a feature role.

    Joel Brigham

    He hasn’t looked awful, but he hasn’t looked as immediately amazing as we all thought he’d be. I think he’s working at it, and I feel confident he’ll figure out how to explode onto the scene sometime in the not-too-distant future. We’ve seen a flashes of it this season, but it’d be nicer to see him be more officient offensively. Great kid, though, and really hoping he does well.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

    Danny is not an excuse for the pisss poor coaching and the execution of their offense. For Hibbert to constantly get pushed off the block by one of the lightest centers in the league is inexcusable. Danny has nothing to do with this. Hibbert has done this with Danny in the game. It is the coaches job to get his guys in the best positions to Excel. This should not take 9 + games to happen with a starting line up that has been coached by the same coach for what, a 100 games. Come on Man!

    Jerry Sloan, SVG... Hell I'd settle for Mike Brown.
    Last edited by Pacer Fan; 11-15-2012, 09:57 PM.
    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

      I agree. Granger wouldn't solve any of the poor drive and dish offense because that's not his skill. And last year Danny spent the first month or so shooting absolutely terrible and the team still won games with a road loaded schedule.

      Granger is not Derrick Rose, and the Pacers aren't playing as well as the Bulls did/are without Rose.

      I thought maybe his 3pt threat was part of it, but the last few games the major problem looks like terrible plays. And now the team is folding because you can see the defense starting to dip and make mistakes. I worry that this wagon might be building momentum and headed out of control, and if it does then 100% Vogel is in trouble. He's on the hot seat because of current trajectory. He's not dumped because it's early and you never know, but to avoid being removed he's got to get something sorted out and get the QUALITY OF PLAY up.

      Maybe he can get them to 6-3 on the next 9 and calm the waters, but another 3-6 stretch is bad news.


      And please keep in mind that they have 3 wins against teams in the bottom fourth of the league, 2 of which were at home, all of which were close, and one of which required double OT. Meanwhile one of the other bottom fourth teams, a team Stein just moved down 10 spots in the power rankings, dusted them by 30 most of the night. Do you realize what things are going to look like if they are playing like this when the schedule turns?


      I love the team and obviously will never stop supporting them. Gnome and I are headed to the Bay area for a couple of games. I'd like to see Frank figure it out and prove himself, not just because I'd see better ball but because he and the team would get the reward of success that I'd like them to have. But...if Frank fell off a building I'd be saying "if he doesn't grow wings and turn this around he's in big trouble" because that would be the unfortunate reality of it.


      Granger is great and I hate how underrated he seems at PD sometimes, but he's not the primary issue.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

        Well said Seth.
        You 2 have fun out there.
        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

          I agree. Granger wouldn't solve any of the poor drive and dish offense because that's not his skill. And last year Danny spent the first month or so shooting absolutely terrible and the team still won games with a road loaded schedule.

          Granger is not Derrick Rose, and the Pacers aren't playing as well as the Bulls did/are without Rose.
          Amen to this, finally Seth is turning the corner again.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

            The issue with the Pacers is offense. The issue with the offense is lack of a solid and consistent perimeter threat...something that spreads the floor and gives the bigs more room to operate and pass. It gives all the guys more room to operate. As it is, you see an offense that looks bad because the spacing is bad...and the spacing is bad because we lack good shooting. Granger was the best. Quite frankly, Collison was also a loss that is being felt.

            Granger is also a guy who you can rely on for 18PPG every time (at least) and sometimes 30. We can't even rely on West for that. It bumps our points up to 100+ and allows other guys better and more open looks...facing weaker defenders.

            Edit: Instead of Granger stretching the flloor, we have people like Lance, West and Hibbert packing the lane....with an inconsistent Paul George shooting and Hill trying to run an offense where most of the guys are playing 12 feet from the basket. The idea is inside-out...and side to side passing. We have gone a bit too far the other direction from the three point shooting spectacle we were a couple years ago.

            Our 3% is 29.9%...5th worst in the league. It's hard to play 5 on 5 in a 12 foot square and expect the offense to look fluid.
            Last edited by BlueNGold; 11-15-2012, 11:45 PM.
            Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

              I agree that Granger spacing would help, but the fact is they would still run the low post stuff with someone running through the baseline for the potential Roy pass and they would still struggle to slowly feed Roy while he struggles to hold position or do something with the position. They would also still drive off the high post pick that results in awkward "nowhere to go" traps as they get toward the low block.

              This isn't a team that has some guy just missing 6 3PAs that Danny would be hitting. This is a team that can't get ANYONE a clean look. For chrissake West was just bullying away 2-3 guys to hit some of the most "no way in hell is that dude open" shots you could imagine. Lance and now Hill just freelance or speed-force into some makes when they can. And that's the whole offense, that's the pinnacle.


              I mean unlike Vnzla I actually like Granger and can't wait till he returns, but that guy is not riding in on a white horse to solve all these offensive issues by himself.

              He's going to be more like one dude with a bucket of water running into the middle of a forest fire when he returns.




              BTW, while I don't dislike "dribble creators" ala Mayo, I prefer the balanced "each man with a role running a plan" style that Pop, Sloan or Carlisle present. Frank hasn't figured out how to implement his vision, meaning I believe in his intentions but I think he's getting a lesson in how what you think will work doesn't always pan out that way. Maybe he'll find it yet. If so it will be a great story.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-15-2012, 11:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                I mean unlike Vnzla I actually like Granger and can't wait till he returns, but that guy is not riding in on a white horse to solve all these offensive issues by himself.
                Yes I hate him so much that I was saying that Green or Young were not going to replace his production, I'm not the one that said that "Green was going to be just fine" and stop stealing my lines I'm the one mentioning Danny riding in a white horse to save the Pacers.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                  I agree Grangers ability to space the floor would be a big addition, but I feel like where it screws us up most, is the comfort level with the young guys. Now PG is option 1A on the perimeter, and that's just not him. David West needs to do way more, as does Roy. And our offense really isn't designed for guys to be able to "step up". It is more of a read & react type of system. So teams now can turn their attention to those guys, who are already stretched beyond their limits, and it makes it tough. Now we are trying to beat teams with guys like Gerald Green and Lance instead of a more seasoned player like Danny.

                  Plus B&G made a great point about Lance entering the lineup. Not only are guys not use to playing with him yet, it causes the opposing team to pack the paint. And no one is making them pay for it.
                  "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                    Paul George looks awful in a feature role.


                    Originally posted by Joel Brigham View Post
                    He hasn’t looked awful, but he hasn’t looked as immediately amazing as we all thought he’d be.
                    Ummm . . . He's looked awful.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                      I didn't except the Danny excuse at first, but started to think about some numbers.

                      Danny in his worst starting season averaged 13.9 ppg.

                      The 6 games we lost by and average of 8 ppg.

                      Exclude the Spurs game, and we only lost by an average of 3.2 ppg.

                      Im not saying stats are all showing, but it does seem a bit (for lack of a better word) convenient that the same team that was the 3rd best in the east, and 5th best in the league last season under the same coaching staff. Now cant even beat low level teams. Just saying it's something to consider.
                      If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                      @LetsTalkPacers

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                        Originally posted by PD GameBattles 2k13 View Post
                        I didn't except the Danny excuse at first, but started to think about some numbers.

                        Danny in his worst starting season averaged 13.9 ppg.

                        The 6 games we lost by and average of 8 ppg.

                        Exclude the Spurs game, and we only lost by an average of 3.2 ppg.

                        Im not saying stats are all showing, but it does seem a bit (for lack of a better word) convenient that the same team that was the 3rd best in the east, and 5th best in the league last season under the same coaching staff. Now cant even beat low level teams. Just saying it's something to consider.
                        Garbage time made some of those games closer.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Garbage time made some of those games closer.
                          Which one other that the Milwaukee game? He's already discounting the SA blowout.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Garbage time made some of those games closer.
                            Like I said, it's not a tell all tale for sure, but it does give a glimpse into how much better we are with Danny. I think we could easily be 7-2 with him in the lineup.

                            I know many people think Dannys not that great, and maybe for the most part he isnt. I do however think that he is very important to OUR team. I mean ppg aside. He also is a huge upgrade in many other areas compared to Lance/Green/Young.
                            Last edited by LetsTalkPacers84; 11-16-2012, 04:36 PM.
                            If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                            @LetsTalkPacers

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Which one other that the Milwaukee game? He's already discounting the SA blowout.
                              SA was a blowout, Milkaukee was a blowout, Toronto's last game was pretty much a blowout until they ran out of gas, out of 9 games I think they have let the other team be up by a huge marging for at least 4 or 5 games.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X