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

  • #31
    Re: Would this be enough for Granger

    [QUOTE=Sparhawk;1000546]
    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post

    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!!!
    He's only 27 turning 28 in April next year. Granger will outlast most SF's, since he doesn't attack the basket aggressively, and is pretty much a shooter. Granted, JOB will shorten his longevity, if he keeps playing Granger at the 4, but hopefully the next coach won't do that.

    Some of you are putting way too much value in getting "younger" with unknown talent vs. continuing to build around the solid talent that we already have. Indiana is NOT an untalented team. We just have too many holes to plug (due to injuries), and we have a coach who doesn't know how to plug those holes (D. Jones/Granger at the PF, two PGs in the backcourt, benching a rookie PG w/promise, calling a young PF's inspiring play irrelevent, publicly dogging a young SG, relying too much on the 3, etc).

    As easily we can get the next Kevin Durant, we could just as easily end up with the next Greg Oden.


    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


    • #32
      Re: Would this be enough for Granger

      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
      Some of you are putting way too much value in getting "younger" with unknown talent vs. continuing to build around the solid talent that we already have. Indiana is NOT an untalented team.
      We are one of if not the least talented teams in the league. Name 3 other rosters that you would take ours over...I can't even do it - maybe the Wizards and Detroit, but even that is debatable IMO.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Would this be enough for Granger

        I'll admit I have not seen Love play all that often, but I don't understand the love for Love. he doesn't seem very good to me, perhaps a decent smart workman type player, but hardly a difference maker at all

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Would this be enough for Granger

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

          he doesn't seem very good to me, perhaps a decent smart workman type player, but hardly a difference maker at all

          AND neither were either Davis' difference makers. BUT they brought talents that could be used successfully.

          Love is a rebounder, excellent passer, and can score. He's not the fleetest of foot but neither were either DD or AD. Love isn't the "D" player/enforcer DD was, but he plays decent "D".

          Love has more upside to come, only a 2nd year player, and is 9 mil cheaper than Granger. SF is the easiest position to fill, and there are some nice SF talent in this draft. I'm not going to try and snow you that there is a SF in this draft better than Granger, but having the #4, and 16 picks to use to better this team for the future would be a major plus.

          I like Granger, but I'm not a fanatic about him. He's had injuries, he plays less "D" than his 1st 2 seasons, and I'm not sure he will ever be an Allstar again. Then on top of that "IF" Dunleavy gets his game back, he makes it easier to have traded Granger, and his next contract should be 3-5 mil less a year than Granger while developing a player like Paul George, Stanley Robinson, or Gordon Hayward for the future.

          I gather your cup of tea is a good PG. Just think with the 4 and 16 picks you could get a Bledsoe, Bradley, or a White for the PG of the future. OR trade the 16 pick and player for Collison who you seem to like. Then with the expirings of Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, Solo and Tinjury you can even do more.

          If I'm going to have to watch a 32-36 win team, I'd rather watch one that is building for a championship run in 3-4 years with youth. JMOAA

          I'm not trying to sell you I'm right, just pointing out the possibilities. JMOAA

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Would this be enough for Granger

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            Just how much longer will Granger want to a Pacer stuck in mediocrity when those expirings aren't used to get better?
            What makes you believe they won't be used to get better? If there's any way to use them (which there are) I'd have to believe Bird and Co wouldn't be stupid enough to not use them. We've seen heaps of situations in the past where teams give up talent for expirings. The Lakers wouldn't still be in the playoffs if it wasn't for the Grizzlies giving them Gasol. Rasheed Wallace when he went to the Pistons is another example. Jameison to the Cavs is the latest example.

            Also, 28 is not old. The Paul Pierce comparison is pretty good I think. Not saying they're the same player, but their situations were pretty similar. If he was 32, sure I'd agree, but not at 28.

            We absolutely need more talent, but I think that can be garnered by drafting intelligently as well as making use of those expirings.

            Edit: Danny only turned 27 last month.
            Last edited by pacerDU; 05-28-2010, 12:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Would this be enough for Granger

              I think either trade option would work. love the 4th pick and 16th pick , or flynn 4th pick and 16th pick. Both love and flynn have tremendous upside.

              You have to explore all options. To get out of mediocrity you have to make some dramatic moves. If it means trading Granger than you need to at least explore the options. Getting a young up and coming player and two high first round draft picks would be great, but I'm sure there are other teams willing to trade for him. What about New Orleans, Portland, Philly, or New Jersey. I hope Bird is at least exploring the options.

              As for Grangers age, I don't think it is a factor yet. We could turn it around in 2 years and he will only be 29. It is more about him being the top asset that we have. We are rebuilding and need to explore all options.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                AND neither were either Davis' difference makers. BUT they brought talents that could be used successfully.

                Love is a rebounder, excellent passer, and can score. He's not the fleetest of foot but neither were either DD or AD. Love isn't the "D" player/enforcer DD was, but he plays decent "D".

                Love has more upside to come, only a 2nd year player, and is 9 mil cheaper than Granger. SF is the easiest position to fill, and there are some nice SF talent in this draft. I'm not going to try and snow you that there is a SF in this draft better than Granger, but having the #4, and 16 picks to use to better this team for the future would be a major plus.

                I like Granger, but I'm not a fanatic about him. He's had injuries, he plays less "D" than his 1st 2 seasons, and I'm not sure he will ever be an Allstar again. Then on top of that "IF" Dunleavy gets his game back, he makes it easier to have traded Granger, and his next contract should be 3-5 mil less a year than Granger while developing a player like Paul George, Stanley Robinson, or Gordon Hayward for the future.

                I gather your cup of tea is a good PG. Just think with the 4 and 16 picks you could get a Bledsoe, Bradley, or a White for the PG of the future. OR trade the 16 pick and player for Collison who you seem to like. Then with the expirings of Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, Solo and Tinjury you can even do more.

                If I'm going to have to watch a 32-36 win team, I'd rather watch one that is building for a championship run in 3-4 years with youth. JMOAA

                I'm not trying to sell you I'm right, just pointing out the possibilities. JMOAA
                Dude the thing that made Dale such a special defender was the fact that he was very fleet of foot for a man his size. His lateral quickness and ability to recover are the very things (beyond his strength) that put him head and shoulders above Antonio. Tony was strong (Not as strong as Dale of course) but he was nowhere near the defender because he could not jump as high, run as fast or recover as quickly.


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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                  Really, I am amazed that people think there is even a possibility that a team gives up the equivelant of basically 3 top 15 picks for Danny Granger.
                  "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                    Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                    Really, I am amazed that people think there is even a possibility that a team gives up the equivelant of basically 3 top 15 picks for Danny Granger.

                    Bing!


                    Danny is worth more to us than to anyone else.




                    .
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      Bing!


                      Danny is worth more to us than to anyone else.




                      .
                      I dont really think so.

                      I normally undervalue Pacer players.

                      I think we have the 30th best backcourt in the league for instance and that is actually being kind since Phoenix, Boston and probbaly others have better backups at the 1 and 2 than we have starting.

                      Granger is a top 15 player.

                      Very few players can average 25 /gm and be solid defenders and rebounders as well.

                      I think he is an older Kevin Durant. A similiar talent to Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki.

                      Hes not in the elite class of players but he is in the next tier.

                      That is my issue with trading him and in getting enough value in return for him.

                      Kevin Love and DeMarcus Cousins may sound liek a kings ransom to some....but Love is only marginally above average at his position and Cousins could be a complete bust.

                      At the end of teh day I probably wouldn't make the trad either but I have a strong suspicion that I would regret passing on such a trade if it was available.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                        I like Granger a lot. But comparing him to Paul Pierce is laughable.

                        Pierce has played in 94 playoff games and led or helped lead the
                        Celtics to 3 EC Finals and 2 NBA Finals. As a result, he may well
                        end up being an NBA, Hall of Fame inductee.

                        What has DG done thus far that is even remotely comparable ?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                          Originally posted by Hillman's 'Fro' View Post
                          I like Granger a lot. But comparing him to Paul Pierce is laughable.

                          Pierce has played in 94 playoff games and led or helped lead the
                          Celtics to 3 EC Finals and 2 NBA Finals. As a result, he may well
                          end up being an NBA, Hall of Fame inductee.

                          What has DG done thus far that is even remotely comparable ?
                          How good were teh Celtics before Garnett and Allen arrived ??

                          The playoff comparison implies that Pierce alone is capable of winning playoff gms ..........which isnt true.

                          Joe Johnson, Kevin Durant and Chris Bosh havent won meaningful playoff games. LeBron doesnt have a ring................neither does Howard or Dirk . Amare never made teh Finals.

                          Granger and Pierce are different players but they are comparable in their staus as All Star level players.

                          Give us Garnett or even Gasol and you would be surprised how quickly teh Pacers would start winning playoff games.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                            Nappy-

                            A bunch of those playoff games and 1 of the EC Finals appearances
                            were prior to KG and Allen arriving in Boston. And aside from Antoine
                            "I never met a bad shot I won't chuck up" Walker, those Celts teams
                            were a bunch of role players and Pierce.

                            I'm not trying to overly inflate Pierce or needlessly denigrate Granger.
                            But they simply aren't on the same level as NBA players.

                            Pierce has been a perrenial All-Star and hit more big, clutch shots in
                            huge playoff games than can be counted. Granger has been an All-Star
                            once, may or may not ever be again and hasn't played a meaningful
                            role in even a single, playoff game.

                            Note: Given that Pierece is 33 and DG is only 27, if forced to choose
                            between them, while Pierce has certainly been and still is
                            the superior player, going forward, I'd take Granger.
                            Last edited by Hillman's 'Fro'; 06-02-2010, 08:28 AM. Reason: adding to post

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                              Originally posted by Hillman's 'Fro' View Post
                              Nappy-

                              A bunch of those playoff games and 1 of the EC Finals appearances
                              were prior to KG and Allen arriving in Boston. And aside from Antoine
                              "I never met a bad shot I won't chuck up" Walker, those Celts teams
                              were a bunch of role players and Pierce.

                              I'm not trying to overly inflate Pierce or needlessly denigrate Granger.
                              But they simply aren't on the same level as NBA players.

                              Pierce has been a perrenial All-Star and hit more big, clutch shots in
                              huge playoff games than can be counted. Granger has been an All-Star
                              once, may or may not ever be again and hasn't played a meaningful
                              role in even a single, playoff game.

                              Note: Given that Pierece is 33 and DG is only 27, if forced to choose
                              between them, while Pierce has certainly been and still is
                              the superior player, going forward, I'd take Granger.
                              I like Pierce to.

                              I just think that in his prime, Pierce was probbaly the league's 10th-12th best player and Granger is currently somewhere in the mid teens........pretty close.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Would this be enough for Granger

                                I put DG in the mid-20's or so. Therein lies our difference of opinion
                                on him. Nice to have a place like PD to hash it all out...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X