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

I think drafting Granger means...

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

  • I think drafting Granger means...

    We are going to resign James Jones and play him primarily at the 2, and trade Fred Jones in a trade for a Center or back up point guard if we are unable to sign Sarunas.

    The other option is, moving JJ over to the 2, moving Freddie over to the 1 and trading AJ.

    I think the best case scenario is moving JJ over to the 2, signing Sarunas, and then trading Fred Jones and AJ.

    But who could we get for Fred and AJ?

    Sorry, this post is quite a ramble, I'm trying to get my thoughts straight about last night and figure out what Larry and Donnie have up their sleeves.

  • #2
    Re: I think drafting Granger means...

    I disagree, I think this means JJ is not coming back and that we are throwing the names of Bender, Artest, Foster, Pollard, Jones, AJ, and Jack to see what shooting guard any combo of those players can get.
    House Name: Pacers

    House Sigil:



    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I think drafting Granger means...

      I hope your wrong...

      I don't wanna see Jack or Artest leave especially. I think with the addition of Granger we are a good enough ball club, especially if we sign Sarunas, who I think will be a starter very soon.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I think drafting Granger means...

        I know that I'm in the minority here, but I would love to see a Artest and Pollard (to make it work) for Peirce trade.

        Making this the lineup.

        Tinsley/AJ/Sarunas or Gill
        Peirce/Fred/Jackson
        Jackson/Granger/Bender
        JO/Foster/Cro/Dale
        Dale/Hulk/Foster/Cro
        House Name: Pacers

        House Sigil:



        House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I think drafting Granger means...

          Sarunas is waaaaay better then AJ first of all, second of all, I DON'T want Pierce on this team, third of all I think we will see how good Jax can be when he plays shooting guard he's playing out of position when he plays SF, and lastly, Cro at Center?????

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I think drafting Granger means...

            Originally posted by Diamond Dave
            I know that I'm in the minority here, but I would love to see a Artest and Pollard (to make it work) for Peirce trade.

            Making this the lineup.

            Tinsley/AJ/Sarunas or Gill
            Peirce/Fred/Jackson
            Jackson/Granger/Bender
            JO/Foster/Cro/Dale
            Dale/Hulk/Foster/Cro
            Ooooooo...

            I could like that lineup. Is Jackson really a SF? I thought he was really a SG?

            Not so sure about our defense, but it'd be fun to watch!
            "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I think drafting Granger means...

              i definitely want sarunas in a pacer uniform next season.

              is JJ capable of playing the 2 guard? if so, then i would like to split the MLE between JJ and sarunas and explore a trade possibilities using freddie and/or AJ.

              when thinking of those trades, two players come to mind......ray allen & magloire.

              if i had to pick, i would probably choose ray allen as i feel we need a outside sharpshooter and solid vet. in our backcourt.....plus foster is actually a very good center.

              if seattle cannot get a contract hammered out with him then a S&T using say jax, pollard, freddie and/or AJ, and pick might work.

              who knows, i think we definitely need to get sarunas and make a play for a better guard or center.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                Originally posted by IndyPacers67
                Sarunas is waaaaay better then AJ first of all, second of all, I DON'T want Pierce on this team, third of all I think we will see how good Jax can be when he plays shooting guard he's playing out of position when he plays SF, and lastly, Cro at Center?????
                First off, I don't know this Sarunas guy. I'll take your word that he is good, but I would never reward a guy who has never played in the NBA with the primary backup role over a player who was huge part of us making the playoffs last year. So until proven otherwise AJ is a better player.

                Secondly, why exactly do we not want a premeir scorer on this team? The Pacers have always been in desperate need of someone who could create their own shot whenever they wanted. Thats Peirce. The guy has never had a chance to play on a solid team like this, I believe he would flourish.

                Third, Jackson and Peirce would be interchangeable at the 2 and 3. Still IMO Jackson would not be as good at the 2 as multi-allstar Peirce.

                Fourth, Austin Croshere is better at guarding bigger, stronger centers than Jeff Foster who soley uses speed as his defense.
                House Name: Pacers

                House Sigil:



                House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                  Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                  Ooooooo...

                  I could like that lineup. Is Jackson really a SF? I thought he was really a SG?

                  Not so sure about our defense, but it'd be fun to watch!
                  I think that would be a great mix of D and offense. Pierce is an upgrade over Reggie on D, and the rest of the starting lineup would be the same as last year in the playoffs which was fine on D. It was our scoring droughts that killed us against both Boston and Detroit.
                  House Name: Pacers

                  House Sigil:



                  House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                    Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                    Fourth, Austin Croshere is better at guarding bigger, stronger centers than Jeff Foster who soley uses speed as his defense.
                    I don't know about center, but Cro clearly had his best days as a quick PF.
                    "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                      Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                      I don't know about center, but Cro clearly had his best days as a quick PF.
                      Without a doubt, his personal overall best days was when he was a quick PF. Thats how he got his extention. However now that he has put on the muscle, he lost alot but is now better at guarding the power players like Curry, Thomas, Magloire, etc... Better than Foster too, who is better at guarding the finesse/fast players like Garnett, Duncan, Howard, etc...
                      House Name: Pacers

                      House Sigil:



                      House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                        Originally posted by Diamond Dave
                        I know that I'm in the minority here, but I would love to see a Artest and Pollard (to make it work) for Peirce trade.

                        Making this the lineup.

                        Tinsley/AJ/Sarunas or Gill
                        Peirce/Fred/Jackson
                        Jackson/Granger/Bender
                        JO/Foster/Cro/Dale
                        Dale/Hulk/Foster/Cro
                        I've been thinking the same thing. The writing may be on the wall for Pierce in Beantown now that they have Gerald Green.

                        Heck, I'd throw in AJ (a vet backup PG like they want) to go with Artest and Pollard in that trade.
                        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                          Trade Checker
                          Trade Checker
                          Home > Trade Checker





                          Indiana Trade Breakdown
                          Outgoing
                          Ron Artest
                          6-7 SF from St. Johns
                          24.6 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 3.1 apg in 41.6 minutes
                          Scot Pollard
                          6-11 C from Kansas
                          3.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 17.6 minutes
                          Incoming
                          Paul Pierce
                          6-6 SF from Kansas
                          21.6 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 4.2 apg in 36.1 minutes
                          Change in team outlook: -6.9 ppg, -4.0 rpg, and +0.7 apg.


                          Boston Trade Breakdown
                          Outgoing
                          Paul Pierce
                          6-6 SF from Kansas
                          21.6 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 4.2 apg in 36.1 minutes
                          Incoming
                          Ron Artest
                          6-7 SF from St. Johns
                          24.6 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 3.1 apg in 41.6 minutes
                          Scot Pollard
                          6-11 C from Kansas
                          3.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 0.4 apg in 17.6 minutes
                          Change in team outlook: +6.9 ppg, +4.0 rpg, and -0.7 apg.



                          Successful Scenario
                          Due to Indiana and Boston being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Indiana and Boston had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
                          House Name: Pacers

                          House Sigil:



                          House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                            DD, sorry but I can not agree even closely.

                            Cro will not be here the coming season, no matter what.
                            According to reports, Sarunas is better then AJ, but a lot, AJ is on the block, be confident the Pacers have the inside track on Sarunas.
                            Ron is not going anywhere, certainly not for Pierce, why trade the best 3 in the game for a 2, while you just aquired a 1-2 combo, have a decent 2 in Jax and a possible 2-3 in JJ and drafted another 2-3-4 in Granger.
                            Pollard is a commodity, expiring contract, but his value will be highest at th e trade deadline.
                            Depending on the Harrision development over the summer, and the re-siging of DD Foster might get on the table, so will Fred, despite his upside, I have a dark feeling that TPTB are more interested in JJ then FJ and FJ is a good commodity right now.
                            Jax might be available if the "right" trade comes along, I think even before they would put Ron on the table, IF anyone would "bid" on Ron.
                            If a player like Allen or Redd would be interested, then expect Jax and Foster and perhaps FJ and certainly AJ on the table.
                            With DD and Harrison we "might" have a hole, but I have a feeling that if Hulk shows a lot of improvement over the summer, (or has made that improvement already) then I expect them to "gamble" on it.
                            I would not be surprised to see something like this as our roster:

                            Tins/Sarunas/Gill
                            Jax(Allen/Redd)/JJ/Granger
                            Artest/Granger/(JB)..
                            JO/(JB)/DD/..
                            /Harrison/DD/Polly
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I think drafting Granger means...

                              P.S. Pierce's salary over the next 3 years (player option 3rd year) :

                              $13,843,157

                              $15,101,626

                              $16,360,095

                              Sorry: he aint worth that kind of money, for less we could give Allen a max deal, S&T and he would do that straight away I feel.
                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X