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

Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

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

  • #16
    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

    Several other posters have said it, but I would reiterate that I would trade anyone on the team for the right deal.

    If the total value of a trade is weighed, I don't know that we will get a sufficient offer for Granger at this time.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

      I just googled a couple of power forward rankings.

      JO was #7 in one.
      Murphy #19 in two lists.
      Foster #29 in one.

      I guess the pickins are slimmer than I thought.
      Last edited by McKeyFan; 10-15-2008, 05:27 PM.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

        Trade him for who? Like others have said, there's nobody out there as valuable to us as Danny.

        I'm ok with trading any player if it makes the team better, but it's hard to see a trade involving Danny that would improve us.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

          Shaq got traded three times. Twice when he was (arguably) the most dominant force the NBA has ever seen.

          I could honestly see us doing a sign and trade for Granger after this season, where I think his value will be at its peak. Send him to a team like Minnesota or Atlanta or New Orleans for a young current player, a first round pick or two and an expiring. See the Joe Johnson trade. I still think Phoenix got the better end of that deal based on what Atlanta paid him plus two future firsts, Boris Diaw and a trade exception. They didn't really utilize their picks or the trade exception however.

          I would expect a deal like that for Granger if we were to pull the trigger. I don't think it would be fair to the franchise if we didn't see what Granger and Rush could do with significant minutes together. We ABSOLUTELY NEED to see what Ford, Rush, Granger and Hibbert can do together this year.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

            I don't think any GM that wants to keep his job would trade Danny. Pure suicide. He's put up much bigger numbers each year. What could you possibly hope to gain. A new "knickname"
            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Trade him for who? Like others have said, there's nobody out there as valuable to us as Danny.

              I'm ok with trading any player if it makes the team better, but it's hard to see a trade involving Danny that would improve us.
              I can think of several young players that I would trade Danny for. Thing is, most are not available.

              The TJ Ford deal was a good example on how to get young talent: wait for a team to have two equally qualified players vying for the same spot. The team is looking to relieve the tension of a "time-share" situation and also has needs elsewhere. Get one of those players.

              Unfortunately, I just described the Pacers more than any other team at this point. Since we are the one with several roster horse races going on and we're the ones trying to establish a solid starting 5, we are currently in a position to trade a handful of backups and starters for an established veteran.

              Not really a hard thing to do when a veteran has worn out his welcome eslwhere, but boy does that kind of thing have the power to backfire on the team trading for the star.
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                Unless Dunleavy "welcomes" his pending sixth-man role when Rush takes over the SG spot, one of our SFs is going to have to go.

                I like Danny. I like Dun. You trade whichever one gets you a better player in return.

                But not this season. And maybe not even next summer. I want to see how Dunleavy does in the sixth-man role.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                  The Questions would be
                  1. Who are you getting in return?
                  2. Who would want Granger?

                  As far as I am concerned he’s more untradable then Shaq, after the last 4-6 years I’m getting close to being fed up with this team and Granger, Rush, Hibbert are the future and I don’t care about anyone else...

                  We are not going to get Paul or Howard back for him and they would be the only sort of guys I’d be interested in.. Ok there All Stars but their character and commitment can’t be questioned (well as far as I am aware, I don’t know any of em personally)

                  But as far as this franchise and my commitment is concerned...

                  I want to see this team grow... from Rookie to Retirement..

                  Reggie Miller, Rik Smits...

                  The people this franchise used to represent... i know i could be living in the 90’s and the world changes.. But people, honestly...

                  Think about it...

                  You want glory, go support the Celtic’s or Lakers.. You want apple pie on a Sunday afternoon after having a shoot around with the family then this is more your team..

                  I have never been to Indiana.. Never been to the US and maybe i am ignorant.. But what this team represents in my world, is a laidback mid west county were some of the old time virtues still exist and that’s the way i like it..

                  I don’t live in a big city and have no desire to, I am a believer in hard work and growing from within and wether we overpay Danny or not, as far as i am concerned he seems to be a genuine guy and the face of the franchise, do we need a " franchise " player, do we need a marquee selling point, or should we just say TEAM and win...

                  If we make the playoffs ever year for the next ten and make the east finals a couple times, I’d be more then happy, if we win the World Championship in 4-5 years when the Celtic’s have fizzled and Lebron is NY and Howard is Playing for the Lakers, then that’s MAGICIAL.. But if we don’t..

                  I’ll be disappointed but i love this team for what i believe it represents, not because it’s a Winner or Loser..


                  Just my two cents when i should be finishing my Analyse and Evaluate Risks assignment...
                  Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Unless Dunleavy "welcomes" his pending sixth-man role when Rush takes over the SG spot, one of our SFs is going to have to go.

                    I like Danny. I like Dun. You trade whichever one gets you a better player in return.

                    But not this season. And maybe not even next summer. I want to see how Dunleavy does in the sixth-man role.
                    I think we need to let a little more time pass before Rush becomes a starter...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                      At this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense to trade him.

                      Right now you'd only trade Granger if you got an equally or nearly as talented player at another position.

                      Thing is, nobody is going to trade a good PG or PF for Granger, as good as Granger is. If I was the Pacers I'd call Atlanta and offer Granger for Al Horford, but the Hawks would say no simpy because Horford plays a position that is at more of a premium.

                      Chances are, what you'll get offered by other teams are just a collection of guys who aren't as good as Granger.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                        I would not advocate trading Granger, but would also not make him untouchable.

                        Yes, he is not a franchise player. However, look at a team like Washington. I would not classify Arenas, Jamison, or Butler as franchise players either. Heck, I would not classify anyone on the Detroit team that won the championship as franchise.

                        If we got an unbelievable offer, trade him.

                        If not, I will be happy if we resign him to a decent extension.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          If we want to trade him when his value is at its highest - then I would wait another year or maybe 2.

                          But sure I would trade Danny, if we got the right player in return. I would want an allstar player in return
                          I feel the same way. I would trade Danny without blinking an eye if the deal was right.
                          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                            Psh,I've got bigger stones than you!

                            http://games.espn.go.com/nba/feature...8~11&te=&cash=

                            I'm advocating this trade to show off the size of said stones. I ain't scared.
                            Pacers,baby!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                              Originally posted by d_c View Post
                              At this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense to trade him.

                              Right now you'd only trade Granger if you got an equally or nearly as talented player at another position.

                              Thing is, nobody is going to trade a good PG or PF for Granger, as good as Granger is. If I was the Pacers I'd call Atlanta and offer Granger for Al Horford, but the Hawks would say no simpy because Horford plays a position that is at more of a premium.

                              Chances are, what you'll get offered by other teams are just a collection of guys who aren't as good as Granger.
                              For Horford in a minute, and I like Granger!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                                I agree with this.


                                Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                                I feel the same way. I would trade Danny without blinking an eye if the deal was right.

                                But not this.

                                Originally posted by HeliumFear View Post
                                Psh,I've got bigger stones than you!

                                http://games.espn.go.com/nba/feature...8~11&te=&cash=

                                I'm advocating this trade to show off the size of said stones. I ain't scared.
                                “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X