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

Really long ESPN Article on Danny

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

  • #16
    Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

    Anyone think Granger could win Most Improved Player?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

      As good as having a post up ability sounds, I'd much rather Danny work on his ball handling skills. Many good players in the NBA don't post much, or even at all. Plus, if JOB is going to play Danny at the 4 half the time, it would be more beneficial for him to just use his speed and drive past the defenders rather than post them up ('cause chances are that they're going to be bigger than Danny).

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

        The ranking of tier 3 is probably pretty accurate. I think he's at the top of that list though...and has a shot at moving up.

        Every year he has noticeably improved...and next year will be telling. While I expected great things from him all along, I have been surprised at just how good he has become.

        Where would the Pacers be right now if they had picked Jarrett Jack or Gerald Green at #17?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Where would the Pacers be right now if they had picked Jarrett Jack or Gerald Green at #17?
          Don't even want to think about it...

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

            Originally posted by danman View Post
            If Danny wants the second tier, he has to decide to become a defender. Neither his effort nor his technique are up to snuff.

            \
            T-Mac has never been an amazing defender. A motivated Vince Carter still doesn't defend very well. The only thing Danny has to do is keep this up season after season. Especially if Rush continues to develop at the two guard. Then we have a guy that can guard the other team's best wing.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

              Originally posted by Indy View Post
              T-Mac has never been an amazing defender. A motivated Vince Carter still doesn't defend very well. The only thing Danny has to do is keep this up season after season. Especially if Rush continues to develop at the two guard. Then we have a guy that can guard the other team's best wing.
              Using T-Mac or VC isn't selling your point. Granger needs to improve his defense. He doesn't have to be the DPOY, but he should be a solid defender. The reason his defense has declined this year is because the team depends on him for offensive production -- it is difficult to completely carry your team offensively and then get back and guard the best player.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                I'm not claiming every great player has to be a good defender. Vince Carter and T-Mac are average when they care, poor when they don't. The magnificent Dr. J did not earn his doctorate locking up on people.

                But. These players were utterly unstoppable offensively at their best. Constantly getting to the free throw line, converting a good percentage from the field as they put up huge points per game.

                That isn't Danny, not even this year. If you really look at his game, he lacks creativity on getting shots off around the rim. He can't blow past any single defender.

                His offense has kept improving. I'm not claiming he can't make another step and get to offensive Olympus... but these particular abilities are rare and not the type that are learned after years in the league.

                However, defensively effort CAN change and Danny has the tools. He doesn't even show a solid grasp on fundamentals, which can also be learned in mid-career.

                I am very doubtful that Danny can get to Olympus as an offensive superstar. His skillset is not mindblowing. But Danny COULD become a very good defensive player, there's nothing really stopping him except for conditioning and some offseason work. If Danny stays at this level on offense, and gets his defensive game to approach the rest of it, he will be at superstar level. Maybe not media wise, because he isn't spectacular, but as a real basketball player.

                He isn't Pippen, but Pippen would be a damn good role model for Danny. They both have all around abilities, run the floor, block some shots, rebound, pass, etc. They have length to trouble lots of players, with enough quickness to hang with smaller guys. On a good team, they would be the #2 offensive option or maybe 1B. But Pip was a great defender both on the ball and in help D... may have been the best help defender in the league for about 5 years.
                Last edited by danman; 03-29-2009, 12:45 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                  Nice clarification.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                    Entering the same conversation as the likes of Wade, Lebron, Kobe is an astonishing feat in itself.

                    It is tough to see where Danny could eclipse the best attributes of those players.

                    Lebron is a better distributor
                    Wade is a better slasher
                    Kobe is a better scorer
                    Durant is a better shooter (atleast a more natural shooter)

                    Even if his ceiling is only at the top of tier 2 of NBA swing players and he does all those things at a very good level, I think its enough for him to be a #1 guy on a successful team.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                      Originally posted by danman View Post
                      I'm not claiming every great player has to be a good defender. Vince Carter and T-Mac are average when they care, poor when they don't. The magnificent Dr. J did not earn his doctorate locking up on people.

                      But. These players were utterly unstoppable offensively at their best. Constantly getting to the free throw line, converting a good percentage from the field as they put up huge points per game.

                      That isn't Danny, not even this year. If you really look at his game, he lacks creativity on getting shots off around the rim. He can't blow past any single defender.

                      His offense has kept improving. I'm not claiming he can't make another step and get to offensive Olympus... but these particular abilities are rare and not the type that are learned after years in the league.

                      However, defensively effort CAN change and Danny has the tools. He doesn't even show a solid grasp on fundamentals, which can also be learned in mid-career.

                      I am very doubtful that Danny can get to Olympus as an offensive superstar. His skillset is not mindblowing. But Danny COULD become a very good defensive player, there's nothing really stopping him except for conditioning and some offseason work. If Danny stays at this level on offense, and gets his defensive game to approach the rest of it, he will be at superstar level. Maybe not media wise, because he isn't spectacular, but as a real basketball player.

                      He isn't Pippen, but Pippen would be a damn good role model for Danny. They both have all around abilities, run the floor, block some shots, rebound, pass, etc. They have length to trouble lots of players, with enough quickness to hang with smaller guys. On a good team, they would be the #2 offensive option or maybe 1B. But Pip was a great defender both on the ball and in help D... may have been the best help defender in the league for about 5 years.
                      I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what I am disagreeing with is that if a healthy Vince Carter is a second tier wing in the NBA then Danny Granger's production this year is equal to that same billing. Vince Carter was a fantastic offensive player, capable of some really incredible plays, but utterly unstoppable offensively? I don't think so.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                        As go-to as Granger has become, though, he is a long way from crashing the league's elite wing triumvirate of Kobe, LeBron and Wade. In fact, if those guys are the first tier of swingmen, most scouts put Granger in the third, behind a group that includes Pierce, Anthony, Johnson, a motivated Vince Carter and a healthy Tracy McGrady. Granger heads a bunch that includes Rashard Lewis, Caron Butler, Andre Iguodala and Josh Howard. League wisdom holds that in a more conventional system than O'Brien's quick-draw, every-look-is-a-good-one scheme, Granger would be good for 17 to 20 points a night.

                        Okay this is crap. Paul Pierce hadn't sniffed the playoffs for about 3-4 years before Garnet and Allen came to town. Back when he had Fatoine Walker by his side! What has Carmelo ever done in the playoffs, I mean denver one of the most under achieving teams in the west year after year? McGrady hasn't made it out of the first round. Vince Carter has had some mild Playoff success if I remember.

                        Point his, Granger is easily as good as these players, and note all of these players have had a very good center or point guard playing with them at some point during their established careers. Yao Ming, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, Marcus Camby, Dwight Howard, Garnett, Allen, Dirk, Arenas. So the idea that Danny can produce at this level with the likes of Troy Murphy and TJ Ford. Puts him solidly in the 2nd tier.

                        Oh and Kobe and Wade, both had Shaq during their break out seasons.

                        Dumb article.

                        Granger has all the skills needed to break that top tier, just lacks the big man in the middle.
                        I was at the Toronto game this year when Danny broke down and burnt Bosch with seconds left in the 4th. Simply Amazing, because Bosch has some of the longest arms in the league.

                        Crazy how we so easily peg a player during a break out season with no other mentionable around him to speak of. Heck even Wade had a young Lamar Odom who was very solid at the Forward position in his big season before Shaq.

                        In fact the only guys on this list that have ever been the MAIN guy on a successful team is Lebron. Successful meaning making it past round one of the playoffs.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                          Game after game we watch how danny can just tear other teams apart. I know I am a victim of seeing who we are playing and thinking well danny is probably going to have a off night and be around the 18-20 mark but instead scores 35. He has a winners attitude and only wants to get better. Match that with his HIGH IQ I see danny granger taking us deep in the next 2 years.

                          I do hear the defense arguments. But right now our team is not a good defensive team. For danny to be truly effective we need a monster in the paint so players don't think about driving and we need rush to step up his defense as well. Only then do I see danny becoming a great defender.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                            Originally posted by Indy View Post
                            Vince Carter was a fantastic offensive player, capable of some really incredible plays, but utterly unstoppable offensively? I don't think so.
                            Not anymore, but in his prime, ya he could be unstoppable. His Raptor days were amazing.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X