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

Good read on Brian Grant!

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

  • Good read on Brian Grant!

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/...df05b00ab.html

    Grant is Heat's reticent 'angel'
    By Karen Crouse, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
    karen_crouse@pbpost.com

    MIAMI -- One glance at Brian Grant and you know instantly which way the Heat's fortunes are blowing. Because you can read him like a weather vane, it's easy to get the wrong drift about the power forward/center.

    When he's on the court, his emotions rush as close to the surface as his blood. That much is true. But for all his demonstrativeness, there's so much more that Grant keeps inside, that he steadfastly refuses to offer up for public consumption.

    The bottom line with Grant is this: He is deeper than the Indiana Pacers' bench.

    For one thing, Grant has this thing about injuries. He will own up to any frailty but the physical kind. You say injury, he hears "excuse."

    Somebody asked him about his health Sunday and he waved the question off with both hands the way a football official does an incomplete pass.

    "There's no health issues," he said in the kind of clipped tone that discouraged any follow-up. Never mind that you could call Grant "the Mummy" and nobody would blink because of all the cloth bandages he wears.

    Grant, 32, would have you believe it's perfectly normal to have chronic tendinitis in both knees and a spasmodic lower back and the pleasure of defending the league MVP second runner-up who is 2 inches taller, nearly seven years younger and as mobile as a car phone.

    The way Grant has played Jermaine O'Neal, it's as if he's muttering to himself every time up the court: "Jermaine O'Neal is going to beat us over my decrepit body."

    The Pacers' 6-foot-11 forward averaged 20.1 points during the regular season and shot 44 percent from the field against Boston in the first-round of the playoffs. In two games with Grant guarding him, O'Neal has shot 31.2 percent from the field and averaged 15.0 points.

    O'Neal has not played up to his capabilities in this Eastern Conference semifinal series. He'll Grant you that.

    Even Heat coach Stan Van Gundy, who can be stingy with his praise, said: "I think Brian's doing a good job of not allowing (O'Neal) deep catches. He's forced him out of his comfort zone. Jermaine's still more than capable of making those shots. But at least he's not in the paint, under the rim."

    Ask Grant whether his defense has been the difference in O'Neal's so-so start, though, and he cringes.

    "Not at all," he said, looking horrified that anybody would suggest such a thing.

    The question, you see, veers into territory that Grant considers tacitly off-limits. He is uncomfortable bragging on himself. The way he sees it, he's simply doing what he's being paid ridiculously good money to do.

    "Jermaine O'Neal is below his average because other (Pacers) have stepped up," Grant said. "They haven't had to go to him as much. I don't look at it as I'm in a groove or anything. I know any time he could bust out and have a 25-, 30-point game. I'm not going to let him. But he's capable of doing that."

    Somebody asked Van Gundy whether tonight was a do-or-die game for the Heat, who are down 0-2 in the best-of-seven series. That question Grant really would have hated. He has too solid a grip on reality to talk about a basketball game in life-and-death terms.

    How he came by his healthy perspective is something else about which Grant isn't comfortable talking. Five years ago, when he was playing in Portland, one of his regular visits to a children's hospital led to a friendship with a 16-year-old leukemia patient named Luther Ellett.

    The teenager needed a bone-marrow transplant. Grant, whose first thought was, "There but for the grace of God goes my child," helped organize a blood drive. Not only that, he insisted the nurses draw his blood first.

    Ellett received a donor match and underwent the bone-marrow transplant. He and Grant stayed in touch after the surgery. Grant would visit Ellett on occasion. He'd take him for a drive around the city or they'd play pingpong.

    "We called him Cousin Brian," Ellett's mother, Denise Sayles, said by telephone the other day. "He was a part of our lives."

    Two years after the transplant, the leukemia came back. Tuesday will mark the third anniversary of Ellett's death. When Sayles thinks of her son, she naturally thinks of Grant, too. He meant that much to her son, to her family.

    "When Woody (Ellett's nickname) passed, my brain went blank and numb. I was in deep denial," Sayles said. "Brian was great. He told me, 'Don't worry. I'll take care of everything.' And he did."

    Grant took care of the funeral arrangements, he took care of the bill.

    "I was so lost for words," Sayles said. "It blew me away. It was like God sent this angel into my life."

    Grant, who has kept in sporadic touch with Sayles since Ellett's death, didn't want to talk about Ellett on Sunday.

    It's too painful a memory, Grant said.

    Plus, acts of kindness are supposed to be personal. They are not intended for everybody to see.

    That's Grant, for you. He's never more at ease than when the spotlight's somewhere else.

  • #2
    Re: Good read on Brian Grant!

    http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...l/8629691.htm?

    On the bright side, today's Heat could be tomorrow's Pacers
    Profound, insincere apologies in advance for any tone of premature past tense here. The Heat and its loyalists who'll be howling in the home arena tonight surely don't concede that a 2-0 deficit in this best-of-7 NBA playoff series means Miami won't somehow rally to upset the Indiana Pacers.

    It could happen. Absolutely. Likewise, Pamela Anderson could invite me out on a date, and my wife could say OK, no problem, and the date could go so well that a gift from Pam, a Lamborghini Murcielago (red, if possible), could appear in my driveway the next morning with a bow on it.

    Sure, Miami would need to win all its home games in the series and then -- despite not having won a road game all season against a team with a winning record -- win at least one and possibly two road games against the team with the best record.

    But stranger things have happened. Please let me know if you think of any.

    While I'm waiting, I'm going to go ahead and speak as if the conclusion is foregone, if you don't mind. Or, even if you do mind.

    I feel as if I am forging ahead with the eulogy despite constant interruptions from the deceased. But that's OK.

    LOOKING AHEAD

    This is a positive column with an upbeat message, actually.

    Seriously, it is.

    See, the Pacers, three years ago, were the Heat, right now.

    Miami looks at its opponent in this series and sees itself.

    Sees what it could become.

    Indiana has won 67 of 88 games this season, including six straight by double figures in the playoffs -- a record. This is the best basketball team on Earth at the moment, until anybody else proves otherwise.

    Three years ago, they were 42-40. Just like the Heat was this season.

    Except that the Pacers were eliminated in the first round then, whereas Miami slugged past New Orleans to accelerate its basketball education.

    Jermaine O'Neal was not Jermaine O'Neal three years ago. Lamar Odom, still ascending, could be Jermaine O'Neal.

    Ron Artest was not Ron Artest three years ago. Caron Butler, same body, same game, could be Ron Artest.

    Three years ago the Pacers were a .500-type team, and grew into this bona fide championship contender.

    So can the Heat. But Miami must go through this first.

    This learning.

    This humbling.

    This process of knowing what hunger feels like.

    It is a natural, mandatory sequence, in this sport more than in others.

    Nobody arrives in the NBA playoffs out of nowhere and sweeps through them. Dues are collected here. You don't grow without a measure of pain. Heck, even Michael Jordan had to lose first.

    Veteran Memphis coach Hubie Brown, eliminated in four straight games by San Antonio in these playoffs, called it ''an invaluable experience'' for his team.

    LEARNING FOR FUTURE

    That is what this young, growing Heat bunch is getting -- earning -- through seven rugged games against the Hornets and now however many tests against the Pacers.

    Miami's Stan Van Gundy -- who has proved how ready he was to be a head coach -- and coach-turned-president Pat Riley will learn from these playoffs as much as their players will.

    Odom, Butler and brilliant rookie Dwyane Wade give the Heat such a strong, young nucleus around which to build. Guys like Rafer Alston and Udonis Haslem are valuable pieces of the overall effort and heart.

    Miami will find a way to let go of fading Eddie Jones and limited Brian Grant to get what it needs more: a classic, big center for the low post, or a true point guard. Bear in mind that Indiana traded Dale Davis (!) to Portland to acquire O'Neal, because Portland thought it was a Brian Grant-type player from contending.

    Strange things can happen.

    And fast.

    A year ago, the favored Pacers were humbled in a first-round playoff ouster, and now they are dreaming championship dreams.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Good read on Brian Grant!

      Man I'm getting old. I can vividly remember Brian Grant as a rookie with the Sacramento Kings.

      What impressed me the most back then was his leaping ability. As a rookie this guy jumps up & swats Rik Smits shot out of mid-air.

      I love what he say's about acts of compassion being personnal & not for public consumption. Antonio Davis he is not.


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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Good read on Brian Grant!

        Will, thanks for posting the articles about Grant and the Heat. I don't have time to make much comments right now, but I do think that Miami does have a promising future and could be a player or two away from being a serious EC contender, particularly since they're going to be the strongest team in the weak Southeast Division next season.
        Your horse is dead, get off it already...

        Comment

        Working...
        X