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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    The only thing I fear is a new injury. Otherwise, I think it's just a matter of time before he gets his conditioning up, and I think he'll play like he did 2 years ago.
    If that happens that could probably be the first time ever, how many players came back the same they were before after been out for that long? none? it would be a miracle if that happens.

    By the way I'm seriously asking to see a list of older players that have been out for 19/20 months because of injury and came back to be the same.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Can we not ruin the return of Danny with the talk of "Lance is better--no Danny is better" etc. Honestly it's all opinion at this point, and has been discussed, argued, and frankly beaten into the ground.

      The situation will work itself out, especially if Danny comes back anywhere close to where he was previously. Worst case scenario, we get a good shooting wing player coming off the bench to replace the inconsistent OJ/Solo/Copeland's of the world. Best case scenario, we have a REALLY good 6th man coming off our bench, and a new, completely different set of skills to add to a team that's already playing at a great level. Just enjoy, and chill with all the skepticism until the man actually plays.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        By the way I'm seriously asking to see a list of older players that have been out for 19/20 months because of injury and came back to be the same.
        It's tough to say because he was out for two completely different injuries. If it were simply the knee this entire time, it would be one thing. But it was initially the knee, then it was the calf. But that is a good idea to research. I'm kind of curious myself.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Honestly, I think that ship has sailed. It would be a bizarre and, frankly, ignorant, move to supplant Lance in the starting five with Granger at this point, even if Granger shows he's healthy and back to pre-injury Granger levels (which I am very, very skeptical of). Our starting five is a defensive juggernaut and the foundation on which our current success is built. You don't mess with that.
          I love Lance (see my avatar), and pretty much always have. But, the idea of him moving him out of the starting 5 isn't as bizarre as you make it out to be in my opinion, given that was Vogel's and the team's leanings going into the year.

          It all depends on how well Granger plays. I have a strong suspicion that they'll at least try it to see how it works if he's legitimately back to some semblance of his old form. I'll give you that there's a lot of reason to be skeptical of his chances here, given that it's rare for someone to move fully past a tendinosis-type injury. But if he does, look out.

          Since86 posted some article back a few weeks ago that had a quote with Lance excited about the prospect of being the leader of the 2nd team. There's no shame in being the spark plug off the bench. A lot of players have made a hell of a career out of it.

          It might also put some downward pressure on his next contract size.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            Can we not ruin the return of Danny with the talk of "Lance is better--no Danny is better" etc. Honestly it's all opinion at this point, and has been discussed, argued, and frankly beaten into the ground.
            No offense, but what else can be said then? "I hope he comes back to 100%, I'm really rooting for him!" "Can he come back to pre-injury levels?" "Hooray!"

            I mean seriously, every angle of everything with Granger has been discussed, argued, and beaten into the ground at this point.

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              The better granger comes back it's better overall for the team, I trust Vogel to make the right choice, I don't even know which side is best. Both bring great strengths and both have weaknesses. It's a matter of seeing which fits best and that will only happen on the court.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                If that happens that could probably be the first time ever, how many players came back the same they were before after been out for that long? none? it would be a miracle if that happens.

                By the way I'm seriously asking to see a list of older players that have been out for 19/20 months because of injury and came back to be the same.
                Andrew Bynum is playing pretty good for the Cavs at the moment.
                Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                Panopticon

                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  If we're talking old school, and this is before modern technology, Bernard King came back from a horrific injury, was gone/not the same for multiple seasons and was still a pretty good player towards the end of his career.
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ( so that u can't be misquoted later in the season ) !!!!!

                    What expectations would u place on Granger to consider his return a "success" or "failure"?

                    Over the course of the season, my minimal expectations from Granger is that he will be able to provide 20 to 24 mpg of consistent offensive and slightly above average defensive contributions as the 1st Wing off the bench. He'd take the majority of the minutes allocated to OJ/Solo/Copeland but I do not expect him to be anything more than the 3rd to 5th scoring option on the floor. I know...this is kind of obvious....but I think it's important to note.

                    Any contributions that he can provide beyond what I stated above is "icing on the cake". I think ( but more hope ) that he is capable of contributing at a "Borderline Starter / 6th Man" level while playing up to 26 mpg where he will primarily play with the Starters. However....despite my preference to start Granger, have Lance fill a "Super Sub" role ( a la Manu ) but finish the game with Lance in the lineup, I suspect that Vogel recognizes that there is a need for consistency and the chemistry that was built over the last season and leading up to this point in the season with Lance in the Starting Lineup. I do expect to see Vogel pull Lance in favor of Granger when we see "Bad Lance" on the court. I expect that he will be exceeding my minimal expectations but would not be surprised if he just settled into the above role as "better versions of OJ/Solo/Copeland" in the lineup.

                    Anything that falls short of my minimal expectations....where he is not able to remain on the floor or is limited to anything less than 20 mpg ( of course after a month of playing ) due to conditioning or ( worse ) injury ( which results in having an inconsistent lineup where we don't know if Granger will be in the lineup from game to game ), his scoring touch has been lost ( due to lack of lift in his knees ), any reduced mobility makes him a defensive or offensive liability.....I would look at as not meeting my expectations from his return. But realistically, the only way to really not meet my expectations is if he can't do a better job then OJ/Solo/Copeland.

                    One last thing.....I would not be surprised if Granger does miss some games...here and there for a variety of reasons. But I hope that he does not miss any larger extended period of playing time.

                    Post your expectations now....so that u can get it on record!
                    Last edited by CableKC; 12-10-2013, 06:20 PM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Post your expectations now....so that u can get it on record!
                      I'll put it on the chopping block.

                      He'll play, he'll be an adequate guy off the bench for a few games, he'll miss games because of some injury (Not saying his current one - just something), he might play a few more games.

                      Repeat.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        I don't know which other players, if any, in the last 10 years (for purpose of comparing to a time in history with relatively similar medical knowledge/practice/technology/methodology) have had specifically Granger's knee injury, specifically the same surgery to ultimately fix it, and have a similar body and style of play as Granger, so I'm not sure how seriously I would take historical comparisons in this case. Especially if the injury isn't exactly the same.

                        I also know how Danny looked to me the last game I saw him play, and he appeared in my opinion to be physically the same as before, which leads me to believe he will be what I've said I expect him to be.

                        I'm not arguing this because it's a pointless exercise where no one will 'win', but in any case that's just my take on DG at the moment. I might be the only one. And that okay with me. If I'm wrong, well, too bad for me, too bad for Danny, and too bad for this team. Hopefully I'm right.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Granger's played the game like he's had knee problems for years. He has an old man game that has no reliance on speed, cuts or creating space. He should return to his old form by March or April if he stays injury free.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion





                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              One player that had the same injury as Danny and came back after almost 2 years of injuries is Rashard Lewis, he never got back to be the same player(not even close) but at least he is a serviceable players I think, he could probably play more in a crappy team.

                              I think DG is our Miami Rashard Lewis, decent player that can hit a shot or two before he goes back to the bench(way better than watching OJ, Cope or Hill).

                              Note that Rashard Lewis had some great games with Miami so not everything is negative


                              Edit: Oh crap on the strummer post, that is not good.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                One player that had the same injury as Danny and came back after almost 2 years of injuries is Rashard Lewis, he never got back to be the same player(not even close) but at least he is a serviceable players I think, he could probably play more in a crappy team.

                                I think DG is our Miami Rashard Lewis, decent player that can hit a shot or two before he goes back to the bench(way better than watching OJ, Cope or Hill).

                                Note that Rashard Lewis had some great games with Miami so not everything is negative


                                Edit: Oh crap on the strummer post, that is not good.
                                It's not even close to two years still though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X