Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

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

  • #16
    Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

    I, too, will go with the "subjective", as opposed to object of fact.
    One question that arises in my mind: How does one explain the recent success of the Pacers without a "Top 20" player? Or, along the same lines, the success of the Pistons without the Answer?
    One thing that comes to mind is the coaching and how both coaches adjust without their supposed "Top 20" players. It could be said that since OB has less options (sans Granger), guys who normally don't get the green light are experiencing a lot more freedom and, in turn, gaining confidence. Maybe the same could be said about Coach Curry?
    Should be interesting to see the Pacers upon Danny's return and how the younger guys play.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

      Kobe should be first, then LeBron. But other than that, I agree with his position.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

        typically, when a top 10-15 player goes down to injury, the team he's on does not get better in their absence.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

          Does Durant play defense?

          Does Nowitzki?

          Is Durant a better player now?

          Granger's leadership and toughness are off the charts and will be invaluable when the Ps get to the playoffs.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

            Originally posted by danman View Post
            Reputation and past glories. I like Iverson but putting him in the top 20 is a laugh.

            42% shooting, 29% on threes. Once upon a time, his 10+ free throws per game was the one thing haters ignored in his performance. But now he gets 6. Once upon a time, a pretty good defender when he was in the mood. Currently, he's average on a good day.

            On performance, he's a 7 million dollar player at best. He might do a bit better because he can put butts in the seats. But in this economy, that's not a lock.

            If he doesn't retire, his pride is going to take a hit on his next contract.
            Agree. I've never cared for his game to be honest, but he did get to the line and that's a double win. You're getting points and their getting into foul trouble. Not to mention getting into the team bonus early so that every stupid foul on the other end of the court walks you the other way for more free points.

            But he's never been a great shooter and had to be praised when his assists got into the 9 range. He always liked to play defense away from the ball, he was a homerun play defender. Loved jumping the passing lane or picking a pocket out top, also loved leaving his man to cross the court and try to backdoor steal the post feed.

            The thing with all that is it's pretty individualistic and he never really was good at involving others. People said "look at his teammates" but frankly I saw Jordan make plenty of stiffs look pretty decent. AI didn't do that. Instead he just dominated the ball twice as hard.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Agree. I've never cared for his game to be honest, but he did get to the line and that's a double win. You're getting points and their getting into foul trouble. Not to mention getting into the team bonus early so that every stupid foul on the other end of the court walks you the other way for more free points.

              But he's never been a great shooter and had to be praised when his assists got into the 9 range. He always liked to play defense away from the ball, he was a homerun play defender. Loved jumping the passing lane or picking a pocket out top, also loved leaving his man to cross the court and try to backdoor steal the post feed.

              The thing with all that is it's pretty individualistic and he never really was good at involving others. People said "look at his teammates" but frankly I saw Jordan make plenty of stiffs look pretty decent. AI didn't do that. Instead he just dominated the ball twice as hard.
              I agree with a lot of this, Iverson was never my type of player. Fun to watch, but I'd have been annoyed if he was on my favorite team.

              The year Jordan retired to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 games without him. I don't think Iverson has ever been on a team that would win 55 games without him being on the roster.

              -- Steve --

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                Originally posted by special ed View Post
                I, too, will go with the "subjective", as opposed to object of fact.
                One question that arises in my mind: How does one explain the recent success of the Pacers without a "Top 20" player? Or, along the same lines, the success of the Pistons without the Answer?
                One thing that comes to mind is the coaching and how both coaches adjust without their supposed "Top 20" players. It could be said that since OB has less options (sans Granger), guys who normally don't get the green light are experiencing a lot more freedom and, in turn, gaining confidence. Maybe the same could be said about Coach Curry?
                Should be interesting to see the Pacers upon Danny's return and how the younger guys play.
                I'll ignore the Iverson scenario, because I think he's a shell of his former self.

                Teams in all sports lose stars to injuries all the time and keep rolling. The Celtics lost Garnett to the knee injury but have been fine. Is Tom Brady not a Top 20 player anymore since the Patriots finished with one of the AFC's better records?

                I think a lot of it has to do with teams looking past them. "Oh, they don't have their star, we can rest on this one." It applies a lot more to basketball, especially at this point of the season, where some guys are running out of gas.

                Also, there's the general sense the players have that they need to step up and fill the void. First it was Daniels, then Murphy, lately here it's been Jack. They know they have to play better to account for Granger being out, and combined with some teams' not taking them seriously as an opponent, it's no wonder they're able to win.

                Plus, it forces the guys to run the offense without a security net, so you're going to see a better performance. Someone walking a tight rope might fall during a trial, but take away their net and I think the odds of messing up drop significantly. There's no more margin for error. There's no "feed Danny the rock," so the other teams can't just say "Make sure to cover Danny." Teams don't know who's going to step up, and it's making the Pacers more difficult to play.

                Not to mention giving the younger guys some minutes, as you said.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                  Originally posted by smj887 View Post
                  I'll ignore the Iverson scenario, because I think he's a shell of his former self.

                  Teams in all sports lose stars to injuries all the time and keep rolling. The Celtics lost Garnett to the knee injury but have been fine. Is Tom Brady not a Top 20 player anymore since the Patriots finished with one of the AFC's better records?

                  I think a lot of it has to do with teams looking past them. "Oh, they don't have their star, we can rest on this one." It applies a lot more to basketball, especially at this point of the season, where some guys are running out of gas.

                  Also, there's the general sense the players have that they need to step up and fill the void. First it was Daniels, then Murphy, lately here it's been Jack. They know they have to play better to account for Granger being out, and combined with some teams' not taking them seriously as an opponent, it's no wonder they're able to win.

                  Plus, it forces the guys to run the offense without a security net, so you're going to see a better performance. Someone walking a tight rope might fall during a trial, but take away their net and I think the odds of messing up drop significantly. There's no more margin for error. There's no "feed Danny the rock," so the other teams can't just say "Make sure to cover Danny." Teams don't know who's going to step up, and it's making the Pacers more difficult to play.

                  Not to mention giving the younger guys some minutes, as you said.
                  please don't bring tom brady into this conversation. the pat's record this year is more proof that it's the patriot's/belichick's system that is winning them superbowls rather than tom brady. most predicted the pats to continue their winning ways when brady went down for this very reason. i'll give you brady as being a top 2-3 nfl qb, but i won't give you brady being a top 20 player in the nfl.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                    please don't bring tom brady into this conversation. the pat's record this year is more proof that it's the patriot's/belichick's system that is winning them superbowls rather than tom brady. most predicted the pats to continue their winning ways when brady went down for this very reason. i'll give you brady as being a top 2-3 nfl qb, but i won't give you brady being a top 20 player in the nfl.
                    I don't know much about football. Who's this Tom Brady guy?
                    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                      Originally posted by cgg View Post
                      I don't know much about football. Who's this Tom Brady guy?
                      He was Giselle's 2nd choice.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        Granger isn't a top 20 player.


                        1. LeBron James
                        2. Kobe Bryant



                        3. Dwyane Wade



                        4. Chris Paul
                        5. Dwight Howard

                        6. Tim Duncan
                        7. Kevin Garnett
                        8. Brandon Roy
                        9. Kevin Durant
                        10. Dirk Nowitzki
                        11. Pau Gasol
                        12. Yao Ming


                        13. Deron Williams
                        14. Paul Pierce
                        15. Chris Bosh


                        16. Joe Johnson
                        17. Devin Harris
                        18. Tony Parker
                        19. Amare Stoudemire
                        20. Al Jefferson


                        21. Carmelo Anthony
                        22. Manu Ginobli
                        23. Ray Allen
                        24. David West
                        25. Steve Nash

                        I'd have Danny at #9 on the list.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                          The year Jordan retired to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 games without him. I don't think Iverson has ever been on a team that would win 55 games without him being on the roster.
                          I know you aren't disagreeing really, but this point was in defense of AI so...

                          How many won 55 with him? 1, and that team had all-star Ratliff on it followed by all-star Dikembe when Ratliff got hurt at the AS break. It's obviously forgotten that AI spent that year with another AS on the court with him all the time.

                          Plus Jordan came back and they won 72 (well, after his half season thing where he was not in game shape to start), so it's relative.

                          And then there's still a chance Denver is going to do that this very season despite the handicap of starting off with him. (1-2, so playing a 54 win pace with CB instead of AI)


                          AI joined the Sixers after they won only 18 games. His rookie year: they won 22. Wow, thanks for the help. His sophmore year, 31 wins. And that's a team with a young Stackhouse pre-AS with Detroit even (ie, still talented) and Coleman still healthy enough to make a solid impact.

                          SIDE RANT
                          And the coach for that 31 win team - my other overrated pet peeve, Larry Brown. He turned them around alright. Well, after they totally overturned the roster that is. Brown's only improved one team - the Clippers. Every other team got big time additions to it before they won more games. Carlisle takes over a Pistons team LED BY STACK, not 2nd fiddle to AI, and they win 50 and go to the 2nd round.
                          END RANT

                          Jordan's Bulls won 27 games the year before, 38 with him. Not only that, but when he missed most of his sophmore year (18 games total) they fell back to 30 wins.
                          Oakley, Paxson, Corzine, Banks (Gene) and Sellars were the top minutes guys for a team that Mike led to 40 wins
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-05-2009, 08:15 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Granger ranked #19 best player in the NBA; LeBron #1, Kobe #2

                            Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                            I'd have Danny at #9 on the list.
                            There is very little argument to be made that he is in the top 20 but I'd listen. There is zero argument that he is in the top 10. Zero.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X