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

Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

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

  • Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

    1.) Danny plays a lot better when he isn't on the floor with Jermaine. He seems to be too passive when JO is on the floor, and when he does pick his spots to be aggressive he forces it, acting as if its the last time he's going to get the ball.

    2.) I did not see the Wizards game, but other then that one Danny has not played very well or shot it that well since the Orlando game. He looks more like he did last year then he did for the first part of this year. I think he could really benifit playing with the second unit and being more of a focus offensively could light his spark again.

    3.) Marquis and Jamaal need to play together more often. I think we should start Marquis in Danny's place, stay with me for a second. Ever since we discovered that Diener sucks, we have been using Quis as the backup point guard. I feel like he is at his best with Jamaal on the court because he can be sneakier. The less he is noticed by the defense the better he is. I know we then have an issue with the backup point guard spot, but I feel like Andre Owens has shown to be a good game manager who doesn't make that many mistakes. The added scoring punch of Granger off the bench would take pressure off the backup point guard position, and Owens is also a good PG defender.

    I would also bring Murphy off the bench and start Foster, but that's another story.

  • #2
    Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

    do you really want Dunleavy to start at small forward? He got passed around the league and used like a punch bowl in Golden State that way.

    Offense or not, Granger is the only thing Indiana has that can be confused for a defensive swingman. You don't bring those off the bench if you only have one.

    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: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

      Unfortunately, Kstat is right. I say unfortunately not because it's Kstat but because we only have one decent defender at SF and it's Danny.

      However, Danny struggles guarding the quick swingmen like Wade, Butler, Durant, and Joe Johnson. Honestly I'd rather Danny just play better and stay in the starting lineup... is that possible?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        do you really want Dunleavy to start at small forward? He got passed around the league and used like a punch bowl in Golden State that way.
        Yeah you're right. Dunleavy's breakout can be largely attributed to playing the 2.

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Offense or not, Granger is the only thing Indiana has that can be confused for a defensive swingman. You don't bring those off the bench if you only have one.
        I think Shawne Williams is close. He has good lateral quickness and seems to have a pretty good defensive IQ. I know it is far out and never going to happen, but I would like to see Shawne start next to Dunleavy. I would love to see more Marquis and Jamaal, but I think its more important for Granger to get back in the flow he was in earlier, and bringing him off the bench may help.

        I know I'm grasping at straws here, but I think this is a very versatile basketball team with more lineup possibilities then are being used and I hope Obie hasn't locked himself in to these lineups he's been using.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

          Danny to go off the bench is really the worst thing this team needs.. The morale of Danny will be so low, and i dont think he would be effective.

          I say less playing time or more quick off the bench players to replace the starters. but i dont agree with him coming off the bench.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            do you really want Dunleavy to start at small forward? He got passed around the league and used like a punch bowl in Golden State that way.

            Offense or not, Granger is the only thing Indiana has that can be confused for a defensive swingman. You don't bring those off the bench if you only have one.
            Actually yes I do want Dun at SF. He's way too slow at SG and that's how he's been getting beat. His problem in GS had more to do with his own ability to hit the outside jumper and be a playmaker than that SF was wrong for him.

            Right now the Pacers are seeing more success with Quis or Rush at SG and Dun at SF.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Actually yes I do want Dun at SF. He's way too slow at SG and that's how he's been getting beat. His problem in GS had more to do with his own ability to hit the outside jumper and be a playmaker than that SF was wrong for him.

              Right now the Pacers are seeing more success with Quis or Rush at SG and Dun at SF.
              Dunleavy had a lot more problems getting posted up by small forwards than he did with shooting guards blowing by him.

              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


              • #8
                Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                I agree. Danny should probably come off the bench. I would hope his psyche is strong enough to take that, but the truth is, he doesn't play that well with Jermaine. Shawne or Rush would fit well, I think. Danny is just so tentative with JO. I don't know why, but he plays his best when he's the 1st option.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                  It's likely a respect thing. Danny knows J.O.'s been here a lot longer than he has, and he doesn't want to feel like he's stepping on his toes. He's the anti-Artest.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                    So when Danny comes off the bench, then who guards the opposing teams best perimeter player? Lets keep in mind that Danny is 6'9" and the other best possible option is Daniels at 6'6". With all of Danny's shooting troubles, he's still managing to be the 2nd leading scorer on this team. If those points come when Jermaine isn't on the floor, I call that a good thing because that means we have scoring without Jermaine in. Defensively, we'd be idiots to start anybody but Danny at that position. O'Brien stresses defense first, so there you go. No Danny off bench for you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                      Danny's issue since day one has been his aggressiveness or I suppose you could say confidence. The tools are there, he just doesn't ever seem to believe enough in himself. Also his poor decision making at times still holds him back defensively.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                        Why not bring JO off the bench instead of DG?
                        Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                          Reminds one a lot of the days when Jalen Rose would always defer to Reggie... Similarly I think probably here we see Danny treating JO the same way...
                          "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                            Granger seems to me to be the type of player who needs to know what players are being run for him rather than just improvising and taking what the defense gives him. It doesn't seem to be his strong suit to be a playmaker and in JOB's offense, you have to be able to create shots opportunities for yourself off ball movement. In transition offense that isn't as big a problem because you're PG should create those opportunities for you when he kicks the ball back out for you as the trailor along the perimeter, but you've got to know what you want to do with the ball especially if you're going to penetrate and drive the ball to the rack. Unfortunately, Granger seems to miss alot of those baskets in transition play.

                            Something else to consider and unless I've missed my offensive assignments, Granger seems to be the 5th option out there - Tinsley, Dunleavy, JO and Murphy are 1 thru 4 respectively - and not many plays are being run for him which makes it very difficult for him to get his game going because he has to be creative. So, by bringing him off the bench and making him the first or second option, a role he's more accustomed to performing from, I think will help him if for no other reason than he'll know his role, he'll know exactly what's expected of him, and he won't be so pressured into having to score based strictly off his creativity which isn't always there.

                            I think Dunleavy at the 3 would work better because he has been and can be more creative! Plus, that's pretty much where he's had more success offensively all season.

                            Now, here's the problem in both situations: Where do you find the playing time for Williams? Consider the following:

                            Center: Murphy/Foster/JO/Harrison

                            PF: JO/Ike/Murphy

                            SF: Dunleavy/Granger/Williams

                            PG: Tinsley/Owens/Quis/Deiner

                            SG: Rush/Quis

                            Dunleavy has to start! He's no good coming off the bench.

                            I'd like to see Foster start, but he lacks offense. Having him out there w/JO only leaves the defense to double-up on JO.

                            Quis prefers to come off the bench and you have to respect a player who knows his role! But that means you'd have to put him at PG if you're to pair him w/Rush at the 2 which is fine. Quis would retain his 6th Man role and you'd keep a dribble penetrator on the floor with both units; Tinsley being the other w/the starters. Still, that creates another slight problem: When would Owens see playing time? If you keep Quis at the 2 and make Owens your new B/U-PG, that particular problem is resolved, but we still haven't solved the problem of finding playing time for Williams.

                            The only real solution is to play Granger/Williams at SF, Dunleavy/Rush at SG and Tinsley/Quis at PG.

                            Center: Murphy/Foster/JO/Harrison

                            PF: JO/Ike/Murphy

                            SF: Granger/Williams

                            PG: Tinsley/Quis/Owens/Deiner

                            SG: Dunleavy/Rush

                            But as you can see, that puts Granger right back as the starting SF.

                            Critiques and suggestions are always welcomed.
                            Last edited by NuffSaid; 12-29-2007, 01:30 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Reasons why Granger should come off the bench

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              Dunleavy had a lot more problems getting posted up by small forwards than he did with shooting guards blowing by him.
                              Dunleavy's issue in the past wasn't defense, as it's always been understood that he's going to be a bad defensive player no matter who he's guarding.

                              The problem with Dunleavy in the past has been simple: He wasn't putting the ball in the basket very efficiently and was not much of an overall offensive threat. This year he's shooting the ball much better. Hate to simplify it that much, but that was his issue at GS.

                              But defensively, yeah, the Pacers definitely need Granger in the starting lineup. He can be streaky offensively from game to game, but you live with that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X