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

Would this be enough for Granger

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

  • #16
    Re: Would this be enough for Granger

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    This is backwards unless you're convinced Jim will out-last the player coming in.
    I have no idea how long O'Brien is going to be here, so yeah until I know he is gone then I don't want them taking on players he won't play or will only play in limited min.

    If you think he won't play Hibbert now can you imagine if Love was an option for him? It would be one or the other not both.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Would this be enough for Granger

      Love can stretch the floor.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Would this be enough for Granger

        O'Brien wouldnt play Love?.... I am sure he would see potential in this stat;

        09/10 3PM 35 A 106

        No its not perfect, but perhaps with a lot of hard work (see: Mcroberts' Miller/Bird 3pt shooting reccomendation) he could one day be the stretch forward we need to take us beyond the Murphy years.

        green
        "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Would this be enough for Granger

          I'd do Love, Flynn (or Rubio), and the #4 for Granger but thats about it. The guy is really being taken advantage of around here for being a 25ppg player. He's not completely untradeable, but its going to/should take a lot to get him out of the Pacers hands.
          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

          ----------------- Reggie Miller

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Would this be enough for Granger

            I don't think trading Granger is the answer to our problems by any means...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Would this be enough for Granger

              Originally posted by Trophy View Post
              Why do people want to trade Granger? He's the last guy this team needs to trade.

              I'm glad he's off limits.
              Agreed.

              Every year, without fail, people fall in love with the idea of a high draft pick, thinking it automatically guarantees a superstar player. If Danny was in this year's draft and everyone knew how good he'd be, where do you think he'd be drafted? I'd say no lower than #3 and quite likely at #2 depending on how you think he compares to Turner. That said, we don't even KNOW how good Wall will be.

              We messed up by winning meaningless games at the end of the season. You don't turn around and trade your best player to get what you could have by simply shutting it down when you should have. And before anyone says anything I don't mean tanking, I just mean playing for the future (playing young guys, resting Danny etc).

              None of these picks are guaranteed successes in the NBA. Danny is, as has been proven. He's not old, he's a good character guy and he wants to be here. We have an avenue in which to get better with our expirings.

              People need to put things in perspective.
              Last edited by pacerDU; 05-27-2010, 08:05 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                I dont really want to trade him either and I said before that these megadeals are almost won by the team that acquires the best player.

                But Granger will already be 28 next year and JOB loves to play him 38 min + .

                Is he still going to be an All Star when we finalyy have the talent around him to play meaningful games after Thanksgiving ??

                Minnesota HAS to get a franchise player this offseason................Granger is likely their 2nd option after Turner.

                No one wants Jefferson or his contract in a deal like that............just as old and just as expensive and he plays no defense.

                That leaves Kevin Love and the 4th pick as the only reasonable offer MInny can make.

                Im sure they look at Turner first but if Philly balks ............Granger would make sense for them and break up the logjam of Love and Jefferson.

                As for taking anyone other than Cousins at 4..........I can't see the point in that. We need All Star players not more good college..........aveage or below average pro players . Johnson doesnt seem liek a star to me and although Im intrigued by Aminu........I cant see gambling on him at 4.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                  Originally posted by pacerDU View Post
                  Agreed.

                  Every year, without fail, people fall in love with the idea of a high draft pick, thinking it automatically guarantees a superstar player. If Danny was in this year's draft and everyone knew how good he'd be, where do you think he'd be drafted? I'd say no lower than #3 and quite likely at #2 depending on how you think he compares to Turner. That said, we don't even KNOW how good Wall will be.

                  We messed up by winning meaningless games at the end of the season. You don't turn around and trade your best player to get what you could have by simply shutting it down when you should have. And before anyone says anything I don't mean tanking, I just mean playing for the future (playing young guys, resting Danny etc).

                  None of these picks are guaranteed successes in the NBA. Danny is, as has been proven. He's not old, he's a good character guy and he wants to be here. We have an avenue in which to get better with our expirings.

                  People need to put things in perspective.
                  NappyRoots makes some good points. Granger is 28 years old. We know we are not going to be able to sign a superstar next year nor are we going to win the championship next year. So then Granger is 29. Next year there is the threat of the Lockout and if that last a year... Granger will be 30.... I know players can be pretty effective from 30 to about 33-34 but I don't think that would be fair to Granger. This is one of the main reasons why I hate taking 4 year players is because you have them during their prime shorter. Even if you take a 19 year old and it takes them 2-3 years to really start getting it they are still only 22-23 years old. Heck even the last few players that we drafted whom were 3 and 4 year players it still took them a while to get it and we still don't know if Hans does get it.

                  Bottom line is we need to take some chances and make some moves. I love Granger with all my heart and I would be as sad as anyone if he were traded. However, I love the Pacers even more. I might be one of the few that thinks Wes Johnson might be very similar to Granger. I watched him a lot and I saw a lot of Granger in him, plus I think he can create his own shot a little better. I guess one of the main things I would try to do is see how serious Philly is about trading the number 2 pick and see if there is a way we can end up getting the number 2 and 4 picks in this draft. That would definitely speed up the rebuilding process. I know there are no grantees with draft picks but I also know that we have no real options in the future to improve this team. I know Granger is getting older. I also know that now is the time to really think about what is best for this team in the long term instead of always trying to put a band aid on an obvious gaping hole.

                  I will leave you with something to just think about and you tell me if this sounds more interesting/exciting.

                  We trade Granger for Love, 4, and 16.
                  We trade with Philly and get Brand and 2 without giving up any additional draft picks.

                  We draft Turner at 2, Maybe Johnson or Aminu at 4, Ed Davis at 10, and maybe luck up and get Bledsoe at 16.

                  We could be looking at

                  PG Bledsoe
                  SG Turner
                  SF Johnson or Aminu
                  PF Ed Davis or which ever would be the best aviable big at this spot
                  C Roy Hibbert

                  It is a VERY young lineup but we would have all of them on cheap rookie contracts, they could all grow together at the SAME time, and in a couple years that could very well be enough to draw in an even better superstar with the salary cap room we would have.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                    Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                    I don't think trading Granger is the answer to our problems by any means...
                    I concur.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                      I compare the Danny and the Pacers to Paul Pierce and the Celtics a few seasons ago.

                      The Celtics knew that Pierce was a very good player and leader just like Danny and that's why they didn't move him, but they instead brought in good players to go along with Pierce.

                      I'm not saying to go out and superstars, but bring in guys who will play well with Danny. Form our own big 3.

                      We have enough talented individuals on this team (not including Danny or Roy) to trade and get a decent player or 2.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                        Originally posted by pacerDU View Post

                        he wants to be here. We have an avenue in which to get better with our expirings.

                        Just how much longer will Granger want to a Pacer stuck in mediocrity when those expirings aren't used to get better?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                          [QUOTE=PacerFreak31;1000486]


                          We trade Granger for Love, 4, and 16. QUOTE]


                          I'd do this trade in a heartbeat never looking back while skipping and whistling a tune.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                            Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                            I compare the Danny and the Pacers to Paul Pierce and the Celtics a few seasons ago.

                            The Celtics knew that Pierce was a very good player and leader just like Danny and that's why they didn't move him, but they instead brought in good players to go along with Pierce.

                            I'm not saying to go out and superstars, but bring in guys who will play well with Danny. Form our own big 3.

                            We have enough talented individuals on this team (not including Danny or Roy) to trade and get a decent player or 2.
                            That was teh example that I thought about as well when trying to decide what I would do.............a couple of differences though..........they didn't think winning 11 of 16 down the stretch was paramount for future success giving away a legit chance at a top 5 pick............and 2 they had already made a terrific trade for Rondo as their PG of the future......just no one knew it at the time.

                            If we can get our Rondo by picking up a late 1st and make at least a decent selection at 10 then maybe we can stay in the top 5 next year and have enough groceries in the cupboard to make a trade for a Garnett and an Allen to go with Danny sooner than you would think.

                            Not sure how much faith I have in Larry to pull all that off in teh next 2 or 3 years and Indy isnt exactly the #1 destination of choice for most of the leagues All Stars which could be a problem as well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                              [QUOTE=Justin Tyme;1000521]
                              Originally posted by PacerFreak31 View Post


                              We trade Granger for Love, 4, and 16. QUOTE]


                              I'd do this trade in a heartbeat never looking back while skipping and whistling a tune.
                              I'd do the same thing. The Pacers aren't going to win with Granger. I love the guy too, but he is starting to get older and this team isn't really going anywhere anytime soon. Best to go young and then next year bring in a coach who knows how to develop young guys (whoever that would be).

                              I do that trade and the person who mentioned trying to trade for Brand and the #2. I want Turner!!!
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                                Love's a super-skilled big man capable of putting up 20 points a night and who has shown signs of being a dominant rebounder. Throw in the #4 pick, where a good pick up can easily land you an All-Star, and I think I'd have to do it. There's also the fact that #4 would make it much easier to move up to #2 or 3 and draft Evan Turner,

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X