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

Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

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

  • Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

    I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

    Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

    1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

    Danny has become a good shooter, but something about his form I'm not real crazy about. Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that Danny's stroke is more streaky and Dun's is more pure. I've just always felt better about Mike's shot.

    2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

    Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

    3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

    4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

    I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

    5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


    Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    We would have to be getting one hell of a player to justify trading Danny over Dun... and more than likely, that "one hell of a player" ain't for sale. If we traded Danny we'd probably be making a poor move.

    I can see how you might "trust" Dun's shot more, but Danny's has a better history of going in at a good %.

    Honestly I think we should try to trade Dun because he just had what will probably be the best year of his career. We could possibly get something of value for him.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

      I like them both. But it's hard to be a good team if your two best players are wing players. We have to get some sort of post player or point guard, and it could very well cost one of them. Granger is the obvious choice to keep as he has more upside, but of course he could net you more in a trade.

      I'd be against trading Danny unless it was for a very sweet deal that brought a PG/Post player in. Then it would be very very hard to say no, especially given how good of a year Dunleavy had for us this season.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

        ..And I would take Granger and wins.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

          Danny's a lifer with the Pacers I'm hoping.

          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

            I don't see us getting rid of either.

            My question with them being our 2 and 3 is can we be good enough on defense with those two starting? It would be a question to be answered down the road.

            Right now I am not worried about it. We are not close to being a team that competes for a championship and not until then would I really worry about trading Mike or Danny for that matter.

            We have a long ways to go. Really we don't even know who our go to guy is right now or hell who has a future with this team (Williams, Diogu).

            I think we have another 2-3 years of Mike and Danny before we really considering moving one of the other.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

              How much better is Mike going to get?

              How much better is Danny going to get? does anyone feel like he's hit his ceiling?

              I'd like to see a perimeter defender at either guard spot and Danny at SF. If we get a defender at the two then Mike could go to bench and be a great sixth man.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                I don't see it. Trading Danny won't make us better because everyone knows what he is and what he isn't (within a spectrum of possibility). We won't get a franchise player for someone who figures to be a 2nd-to-the-franchise player.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                  If you haven't read what O'Brien and Bird have said..they wouldnt give up Granger for anyone.

                  AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    I'd like to see a perimeter defender at either guard spot and Danny at SF. If we get a defender at the two then Mike could go to bench and be a great sixth man.
                    This is what I am thinking. Get a perimeter defender that can defend SGs while playing with either Granger or Dunleavy ( mostly Granger ) for about 15mpg. I would then shift Shawne to play play some backup SF/PF minutes for the next season to see how things go.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

                      I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

                      Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

                      1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

                      Danny has become a good shooter, but something about his form I'm not real crazy about. Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that Danny's stroke is more streaky and Dun's is more pure. I've just always felt better about Mike's shot.

                      2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

                      Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

                      3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

                      4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

                      I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

                      5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


                      Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.
                      I say keep both as long as we can now. Upgrade our 1 and 5 like Ive been screaming all along, and we are set for another run. Im even for signing Granger to a shorter deal if he skyrockets, if possible. Then he is still very movable if we dont feel we could pay him that much.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        This is what I am thinking. Get a perimeter defender that can defend SGs while playing with either Granger or Dunleavy ( mostly Granger ) for about 15mpg. I would then shift Shawne to play play some backup SF/PF minutes for the next season to see how things go.

                        I almost think that Granger can gaurd the SGs, and you will see him take his perimeter defense to another notch still. I like Dunleavy as gaurding SFs more. I think if we had a PG who could really attck the ball and a couple dominate post threats, a starting C while Foster keeps the PF role, and we have our 6th man as a dominate post guy then our team could be great.

                        I just dont see a defensive SG type as a bigger necessity than any of the ones mentioned above, because I like Granger gaurding them and Mike gaurding PFs, Im convinced our problems lie elsewhere. While I still generally agree that we pick up a defensieve SG, I dont think he should instanly be given Mikes starting spot considering the year Mike came off of. Think about it, there are at least 15 other teams out there Mike could start on, and we are the pacers.

                        We have three starters already. Foster PF, Dunlevy, Granger. We need the others, and we have a lineup I feel good about.

                        Order of importance.

                        #1 Tied between PG and C. If we moved up to get a pick through a Jo and Tinsley trade, unless his name is Rose, we draft the best C available. Then we use our second round to go after the best all around PG left. But his strength should be defense and distribution, and he should also be quick.

                        I see our backup positions being filled through trades. Maybe we could pick up another second round pick for some1 and we could go after a defensive guy at SG. And maybe Ike or some1 we trade Ike/Quis for, could be our packup defensive post guy, whil;e Purphy should retain his backup job.

                        Diener stays, Rush if we can keep him. Williams let him play the backup SF role. We are pretty set if we get all we need with what we have.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                          Is Granger even going to want to re-sign with the Pacers? If I was in charge the majority of you would be calling for my head 'cause I'd package them together and go after a a real star player.
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                            Yeah, I've been thinking about it, and now is the time to trade Mike, he is never gonna have this much value again.

                            I'm amazed anyone would want to keep Mike over Danny... In pretty much all aspects, potential talent, shooting and defense, Danny is better. Mike might have an edge in craftiness, but that doesn't make up for his horrible defense...

                            Maybe we can keep both, but I would rather have a better defender out there than Mike.

                            You don't trade Danny, ever... He is as close to Reggie Miller as we are ever gonna get again.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

                              Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                              I almost think that Granger can gaurd the SGs, and you will see him take his perimeter defense to another notch still. I like Dunleavy as gaurding SFs more. I think if we had a PG who could really attck the ball and a couple dominate post threats, a starting C while Foster keeps the PF role, and we have our 6th man as a dominate post guy then our team could be great.

                              I just dont see a defensive SG type as a bigger necessity than any of the ones mentioned above, because I like Granger gaurding them and Mike gaurding PFs, Im convinced our problems lie elsewhere. While I still generally agree that we pick up a defensieve SG, I dont think he should instanly be given Mikes starting spot considering the year Mike came off of. Think about it, there are at least 15 other teams out there Mike could start on, and we are the pacers.

                              We have three starters already. Foster PF, Dunlevy, Granger. We need the others, and we have a lineup I feel good about.

                              Order of importance.

                              #1 Tied between PG and C. If we moved up to get a pick through a Jo and Tinsley trade, unless his name is Rose, we draft the best C available. Then we use our second round to go after the best all around PG left. But his strength should be defense and distribution, and he should also be quick.

                              I see our backup positions being filled through trades. Maybe we could pick up another second round pick for some1 and we could go after a defensive guy at SG. And maybe Ike or some1 we trade Ike/Quis for, could be our packup defensive post guy, whil;e Purphy should retain his backup job.

                              Diener stays, Rush if we can keep him. Williams let him play the backup SF role. We are pretty set if we get all we need with what we have.
                              TBird's Perimeter Defender thread is much better at explaining why I think we need a perimeter defender at the SG/SF spot.

                              I agree that getting a better PG and Center is as important....but realistically.....getting a perimeter defender at the SG spot is much easier then acquiring the type of PG or Center that I think we would need to make a difference on this team. Getting a defensive minded perimeter defender to help limit the sheer # of 3pt shots made against us ( that ends up making scrubs put up All-Star #s against us ) would go a LONG way to improving the defense of this team. Getting a stronger perimeter defender at the SG/SF spot isn't going to transform us into a top-notch Defensive team but it's a cheap and simple way to make a decent impact to this team with the paper-thin perimeter defense that we have.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 04-21-2008, 02:02 AM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X