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

Stephen Graham

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

  • Stephen Graham

    Is it just me, or does JOB use Graham more than he should? I mean, I really like him and his aggressiveness, but sometimes, he tries to take over on offense and he hurts the flow of our game. His contract is up at the end of the year. Should we look to keep him for a minimum price, or let him walk and give a rookie an opportunity?
    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

  • #2
    Re: Stephen Graham

    Considering we don't have Dun and Granger just got back we had to use him. I think we should resign him for thr min
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stephen Graham

      Originally posted by pianoman View Post
      I mean, I really like him and his aggressiveness, but sometimes, he tries to take over on offense and he hurts the flow of our game.

      LMAO sorry pianoman , but if you didn't have the name Stephen Graham in the thread title , I would have SWORE this thread was about TJ by reading this.. haha

      sorry carry on ...
      "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Stephen Graham

        Now that Jack is playing more PG and with no dunleavy or marquis, He pretty much has to play graham.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Stephen Graham

          Originally posted by pianoman View Post
          Is it just me, or does JOB use Graham more than he should? I mean, I really like him and his aggressiveness, but sometimes, he tries to take over on offense and he hurts the flow of our game. His contract is up at the end of the year. Should we look to keep him for a minimum price, or let him walk and give a rookie an opportunity?
          Last year, Graham was playing in very limited spurts. And in those limited spurs he played pretty decently, causing people to ask "why doesn't JOB play Stephen Graham more?" Well now this year due to some injuries, Graham is playing more.....and showing why JOB never played him much last season when there wasn't an injury problem.

          The next time someone asks "why doesn't coach play Player X more because Player X rips it up everytime he comes in for 4 minutes at a time", remember that coaches will sometimes play certain guys limited minutes in select matchups, because he knows the more he sees the floor the more his limitations are going to be exposed.
          Last edited by d_c; 03-23-2009, 03:40 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Stephen Graham

            Originally posted by pianoman View Post

            His contract is up at the end of the year. Should we look to keep him for a minimum price, or let him walk and give a rookie an opportunity?

            Ist where are you going to get a player with 4 years experience that has played in O'Brien's system for 2 years at the salary he'll get with the Pacers in economic straits? It's a no brainer you keep him if he wants to stay.

            As for a rookie SG? I didn't realize the Pacers needs in the draft included a rookie SG. I was under the assumption that the teams needs for the future were PF & PG. Why draft another SG when you drafted Rush last year? Unless you are saying he's not the future SG or that NBA ready player isn't panning out as Bird had anticipated. The chance of another Bayless dropping in the Pacers lap again at their drafting spot isn't highly likely, and the Pacers have more important needs to fill than at SG. I can't see where a rookie SG would be getting much PT to develop under JO'B next year. JO'B willl stay even more so with playing vets next year in order to win in his last year of his contract.

            I've stated recently I don't feel the Pacers roster next season will have the quality of players, the depth, nor the experience this years team does. Add Dunleavy's injury and Quis' team option not being picked up so another rookie at SG isn't the answer. You keep Graham for the price and experience. JMOAA
            Last edited by Justin Tyme; 03-23-2009, 10:44 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Stephen Graham

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              Last year, Graham was playing in very limited spurts. And in those limited spurs he played pretty decently, causing people to ask "why doesn't JOB play Stephen Graham more?" Well now this year due to some injuries, Graham is playing more.....and showing why JOB never played him much last season when there wasn't an injury problem.

              The next time someone asks "why doesn't coach play Player X more because Player X rips it up everytime he comes in for 4 minutes at a time", remember that coaches will sometimes play certain guys limited minutes in select matchups, because he knows the more he sees the floor the more his limitations are going to be exposed.
              I didn't ask this because Graham has never shown any defense.

              Graham can score and if you need scoring then he's fine to play. However if his jumper is off you might as well pull him out right then.

              He's also perhaps the best dunker the NBA Pacers have ever had, other than perhaps Kenny Williams. Hmm, interesting comparison actually. I say cut bait this year, he's not part of a long term plan IMO.

              Where will you find a replacement? Um, anywhere. Why not get something a bit more useful if you are going to have a guy with gaping holes in his game.


              Contrast that with McRoberts who plays well in a variety of matchups and is not particularly weak at either end of the court. Instead he appears to be a guy that is finally living up to the expectations that were on him when he went to Duke. It makes sense that he is playing better, just like it made sense when an undrafted Brad Miller got motivated and showed a "surprising" all-star caliber game.

              Not every guy not playing should be deep on the bench. I agree that for every scrub there will be 2-3 posters begging for them to play. But with McRoberts it's more than just 1-2 guys.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Stephen Graham

                I wouldn't resign him. I'd give a rookie a shot

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Stephen Graham

                  If we get him for a minimum deal then I think you have to keep him here. He is a good scorer and we don't have enough of that from our bench. He is a specialist. Just like a lot of players can only shoot the three or rebound or play defense. Its the nature of how they made it to the NBA. He is a solid player, and for the sake of keeping a few more familiar faces around I think you have to keep him over some undrafted rookie. But I think he still is our fourth wing player. Perfect for a minimum salary. If he wants more than that he will find his way to Europe.
                  "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


                  • #10
                    Re: Stephen Graham

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    Last year, Graham was playing in very limited spurts. And in those limited spurs he played pretty decently, causing people to ask "why doesn't JOB play Stephen Graham more?" Well now this year due to some injuries, Graham is playing more.....and showing why JOB never played him much last season when there wasn't an injury problem.

                    The next time someone asks "why doesn't coach play Player X more because Player X rips it up everytime he comes in for 4 minutes at a time", remember that coaches will sometimes play certain guys limited minutes in select matchups, because he knows the more he sees the floor the more his limitations are going to be exposed.
                    We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

                    So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Stephen Graham

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      He's also perhaps the best dunker the NBA Pacers have ever had, other than perhaps Kenny Williams.
                      There was this one dude, named Fred Jones, he won an NBA Dunk Contest as a Pacer... he mighta been "ok" at dunking.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Stephen Graham

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                        Where will you find a replacement? Um, anywhere.


                        Not every guy not playing should be deep on the bench. I agree that for every scrub there will be 2-3 posters begging for them to play. But with McRoberts it's more than just 1-2 guys.


                        If they were so easy to find anywhere, why do teams like the Bucks have such poor benchs? They aren't anywhere/everywhere like you propose. Those bench players that can produce when called upon in this economic enviroment are going to be the type of players teams will be looking to get or to keep.


                        You really have a short memory. Last year this board, other boards as well, was clamoring for JO'B to give Graham more PT. He was producing when he got minutes. It is the same clamoring this year with McBob. Chances are if McBob is still a Pacers next year it will be the same as like Graham this year. The only difference is McBob has more possible upside than Graham, but he'll never be close to the PF the Pacers need. He's nothing more than an energy player with some athleticism at best. A David Lee is something he's never going to be, but I'd settle for McBob being a Chris "Birdman" Anderson w/o the baggage. IMO, he'll never be that either. I don't see McBob being this important rotational player others seem to feel he will be. JMOAA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Stephen Graham

                          I'm fine with keeping Graham. He's as good of a 3rd string SG as you'll find.

                          I think there are a couple reasons JO'B plays Graham. The first is that I'd guess he practices just as hard or harder than any guy on the team. O'Brien has to reward that. It seems to me that each uptick in Graham's minutes has been accompanied by a "You have to play the guys that work hard in practice comment."

                          Also, I think JO'B uses Graham to prove things to Rush. It's something like "See how aggressive this guy is? You know you're a better player than him, right?"
                          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                          - Salman Rushdie

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Stephen Graham

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

                            So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.

                            I wish I could believe in that optimistic philosophy about coaches, but then Nellie immediately comes to mind.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Stephen Graham

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              We as fans also need to realize coaches see players in practice. Coaches see players work ethic, coaches see things we don't even consider. That is why I don't criticize coaches for not playing certain players - we don't have all the info. As most of you know I argue in favor of coaches knowing who to play and not to play.

                              So when JOB doesn't play McRoberts, I trust JOB. Coaches know their players a lot better than any of us ever will.
                              UB you're talking about Practice, Practice... not a game... not a game, but Practice! You're talking about Practice!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X