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

Granger at the 2?

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

  • Granger at the 2?

    Perhaps I am the only one that is intrigued by this, but in the Mike Wells article it mentioned that Danny would be working on his dribbling this off season in order to play some shooting guard. Personally I really like this. It gives us the capability to start both Peja and Danny, which is perfect if you ask me. Thoughts??

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=21135

  • #2
    Re: Granger at the 2?


    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Granger at the 2?

      This makes no sense. The Pacers need to S&t Peja, and Jax and then find a nw 2 guard and start Granger at the 3!!!
      STARBURY

      08 and Beyond

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Granger at the 2?

        Finally!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Granger at the 2?

          I hate this.

          Stop trying to have multi-role players. For the love of God this guy rebounds like Dale Davis the last thing I want him doing is dribbling on the perimater while making entry passes to Jermaine.

          Now I have nothing against him working on his ball handling because the one thing right now that he is missing is an ability to attack the bucket. But for the love of God could we please not try this with him.

          I'd rather see him play the four spot than the two spot & I don't even want him there.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Granger at the 2?

            Originally posted by Peck
            I hate this.

            Stop trying to have multi-role players. For the love of God this guy rebounds like Dale Davis the last thing I want him doing is dribbling on the perimater while making entry passes to Jermaine.

            Now I have nothing against him working on his ball handling because the one thing right now that he is missing is an ability to attack the bucket. But for the love of God could we please not try this with him.

            I'd rather see him play the four spot than the two spot & I don't even want him there.
            I 100% agree with you on this Peck. We have a player who could become a difference maker at SF. I don't think he would be close to beying such a player at either SG (bye, bye rebounds) or PF (I don't think he has the frame to bang with those guys for years and years and I don't want him to become an injury risk in a few years because we player him too much at the PF-position). He can perform well at both SG and PF, but he won't be special there, while I think he would be at his natural SF-position.

            Regards,

            Mourning
            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Granger at the 2?

              Originally posted by Mourning
              I 100% agree with you on this Peck. We have a player who could become a difference maker at SF. I don't think he would be close to beying such a player at either SG (bye, bye rebounds) or PF (I don't think he has the frame to bang with those guys for years and years and I don't want him to become an injury risk in a few years because we player him too much at the PF-position). He can perform well at both SG and PF, but he won't be special there, while I think he would be at his natural SF-position.

              Regards,

              Mourning

              Hmmm, your post got me to thinking. Have we been getting more than our share of injuries because the Pacers are playing players out of position? I know thats not so in Tinsley's case, but it could be in JO's. It could be in Foster's case too.

              You know I think that might have something to do with all our injuries. It's just been in the last few years that the Pacers have emphasized multi position players. It's also in the last few years that we have been having all the injuries.

              The 2000 team didn't have a lot of injuries, and they also didn't have a lot of players playing out of position.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Granger at the 2?

                Originally posted by Will Galen
                Hmmm, your post got me to thinking. Have we been getting more than our share of injuries because the Pacers are playing players out of position? I know thats not so in Tinsley's case, but it could be in JO's. It could be in Foster's case too.

                You know I think that might have something to do with all our injuries. It's just been in the last few years that the Pacers have emphasized multi position players. It's also in the last few years that we have been having all the injuries.

                The 2000 team didn't have a lot of injuries, and they also didn't have a lot of players playing out of position.
                I think it certainly contributed to the number of injuries we have had. Or maybe a different way of looking at it is that once a player does get a certain injury then the risk of renewing that injury might be a lot bigger when he has to play out of position against say bigger guys, particularly if that player has to do that for extended periods of time or for several years on a row. Now I don't want Danny to get banged up unnessecary because we refuse to play the guy at the position he excells at. Sure, for a few games, no problem, but I don't think that is what we are talking about here.

                Jermaine and Foster seem to be good comparisons indeed. I'm not a specialist at all at this territory, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it not at the very least would work that way.

                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Granger at the 2?

                  While Danny is best played at the 3, if Peja being re-signed is inevitable, I'd rather all avenues explored to get him on the floor, as opposed to him just being Peja's backup. Danny showed a rather astonishing ability to adapt for any player, let alone a rookie. After seeing his driving skills against NJ, I have no problem saying I'd rather have him at the 2 than Jack.

                  And frankly, this team has a sad history of guys bulking up too much. If Danny's penciled in at the 4, he may very well start putting on muscle this summer in anticipation of the pounding he'll receive. That would only slow him down and limit his effectiveness defending the perimeter, where we need him most.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Granger at the 2?

                    I sort of agree with Kegboy - not so much to plan to play him at SG but there may be situations where moving him to SG makes sense. Just depends on matchups.

                    In reality, whether he works on his ballhandling to help him take PF's out on the floor when he gets that matchup, take SF's off the dribble or to be able to play SG in a pinch is irrelevant - as long as the Pacers aren't going into the summer thinking, "We're going to move Danny to SG so we don't need to get someone if we move Jackson."

                    His best spot's at SF - the team needs to be restructured on that basis.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Granger at the 2?

                      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                      I sort of agree with Kegboy - not so much to plan to play him at SG but there may be situations where moving him to SG makes sense. Just depends on matchups.

                      In reality, whether he works on his ballhandling to help him take PF's out on the floor when he gets that matchup, take SF's off the dribble or to be able to play SG in a pinch is irrelevant - as long as the Pacers aren't going into the summer thinking, "We're going to move Danny to SG so we don't need to get someone if we move Jackson."

                      His best spot's at SF - the team needs to be restructured on that basis.
                      Hey, we agree. I just take it a step further in that I would be willing to S&T Peja for that purpose. I am NOT saying I don't want Danny not playing any SG or PF at all, I would rather limit it as much as possible though, so he can play by far the most of his minutes on SF.

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Granger at the 2?

                        Id much rather see Peja at the 2. Instead of making Danny work on his dribbling to be at the 2 we should set this regime for Peja because we have already seen that Peja can take it to the basket occasionally and draw fouls.

                        This would mean Danny would play at his natural SF position and Im happy with that. Plus I doubt Peja will make as many bad decisions as Jax does.
                        My Dream Team

                        PG - A.Iverson
                        SG - K.Bryant
                        SF - R.Artest
                        PF - J.O'Neal
                        C - D.Howard

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Granger at the 2?

                          Originally posted by J_2_Da_IzzO
                          Id much rather see Peja at the 2. Instead of making Danny work on his dribbling to be at the 2 we should set this regime for Peja because we have already seen that Peja can take it to the basket occasionally and draw fouls.

                          This would mean Danny would play at his natural SF position and Im happy with that. Plus I doubt Peja will make as many bad decisions as Jax does.
                          I think Peja won't be able to guard many of the Shooting Guards in the league and I also don't mind Danny working on his dribbling, I think it would be good for him and his game if he did that. It would make him more flexible and harder to defend as a defender has to take into account Danny can punish them in multipleways.

                          Regards,

                          Mourning
                          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Granger at the 2?

                            Originally posted by Kegboy
                            And frankly, this team has a sad history of guys bulking up too much. If Danny's penciled in at the 4, he may very well start putting on muscle this summer in anticipation of the pounding he'll receive. That would only slow him down and limit his effectiveness defending the perimeter, where we need him most.
                            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

                            If I see one more player bulk up with the Pacers I think I am going to scream.
                            It did not work for Smits. It is not working for JO. It will not work for
                            Granger. The entire training staff and coaching staff should be fired
                            if they try this again on Granger. Get stronger, not bigger.
                            Reggie had it right. He knew he would be no good as a bulky player.
                            But Reggie had good strength. JO needs to lose weight and become quicker.
                            It resurrected Smits career.


                            owl
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Granger at the 2?

                              Originally posted by owl
                              ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

                              If I see one more player bulk up with the Pacers I think I am going to scream.
                              It did not work for Smits. It is not working for JO. It will not work for
                              Granger. The entire training staff and coaching staff should be fired
                              if they try this again on Granger. Get stronger, not bigger.
                              Reggie had it right. He knew he would be no good as a bulky player.
                              But Reggie had good strength. JO needs to lose weight and become quicker.
                              It resurrected Smits career.


                              owl
                              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X