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

Wolves after Granger for #4?

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

  • #46
    Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    To me, it doesn't make sense for either team. It puts Minnesota in win now mode and they aren't structured that way. For the Pacers its giving up your best player/face of the franchise for either Favors (couple of years away) or Cousins (risky pick for intangibles) or Wesley Johnson (could be Danny Granger, could be Corey Magette light)

    I don't mean to sound like a homer, but I would not do this on either side, but for the Pacers, I'd want the #4 and the rights to Ricky Rubio. To me, it's just not worth starting ALL the way over, unless you can immediately get two pieces.

    Look Danny is a top 10 scorer, in his prime, who's a good guy. It's one of those deals where he's worth more to the Pacers than Minnesota at this moment. If you trade him you need a nice group of youngster ala OKC to move forward with. You'd need to convince Rubio to come over to the Pacers, but if you woo him by saying you are going to be the man, the franchise guy, I think it's possible.

    It's all blantant speculation anyway.
    On the surface the hype of Rubio would make some scream "homer", but there is a reason for the saying that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. Granger is proven, Rubio and #4 are not.

    The Pacers do it to get star big in Favors or Cousins, and they hope Rubio pans out not just in ability but in getting him into the NBA at all. Big risks there, but big upside if they work out.

    For Minny that gives you Flynn, X, Granger, Love, Jefferson and even if they are moving Jefferson still they have a solid core and could turn Jefferson into an SG. The biggest key is that it would give them an ace outside shooter and relieve Flynn and Love of some of their scoring load. And at this point they'd still have #16 with tons of bigs and even some solid wing options like Robinson.


    I actually think it's a tougher sell to Indy due to the high risk. Rubio never signs in the NBA (at least for Indy) and Favors goes on to be a classic bust who remains raw and fails to develop much beyond a few highlights. Minny knows they are going to get 40% from 3 in big volumes from Danny.

    Part of my issue is that I just hate the #4 pick at this point. I like Cousins and Favors but both carry serious risks. Cousins isn't an emotional risk, he's a WEIGHT risk. Not Pittman level, but a little worrisome.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

      Title is misleading.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        On the surface the hype of Rubio would make some scream "homer", but there is a reason for the saying that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. Granger is proven, Rubio and #4 are not.

        The Pacers do it to get star big in Favors or Cousins, and they hope Rubio pans out not just in ability but in getting him into the NBA at all. Big risks there, but big upside if they work out.

        For Minny that gives you Flynn, X, Granger, Love, Jefferson and even if they are moving Jefferson still they have a solid core and could turn Jefferson into an SG. The biggest key is that it would give them an ace outside shooter and relieve Flynn and Love of some of their scoring load. And at this point they'd still have #16 with tons of bigs and even some solid wing options like Robinson.


        I actually think it's a tougher sell to Indy due to the high risk. Rubio never signs in the NBA (at least for Indy) and Favors goes on to be a classic bust who remains raw and fails to develop much beyond a few highlights. Minny knows they are going to get 40% from 3 in big volumes from Danny.

        Part of my issue is that I just hate the #4 pick at this point. I like Cousins and Favors but both carry serious risks. Cousins isn't an emotional risk, he's a WEIGHT risk. Not Pittman level, but a little worrisome.

        If you trade Granger woulden't you then go for drafting Wesley Johnson, who looks kind of like Granger 2.0? Big strong quick SF with outside shooting and high defensive potential? Older player with good character. Instead of a risky big man prospect?

        Also, Rubio had Indiana listed as one of his preferred destinations before last years draft, If I'm not mistaken. Probably not for location, but a potential featured role (desperate need for a PG) and the chance to play for Larry Bird might have had something to do with it.

        Don't get me wrong, I wan't nothing to do with this deal unless Rubio is involved. Two top 5 picks is a pretty big asking price for Granger... I think its something you look at, because for gods sake, we gotta do SOMETHING. No trade is without some risk.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          I'm more concerned that Rubio is more "hype" then "substance". I've heard that during the Olympics ( or maybe it was the Basketball World Championship where we got a first glimpse of him ) he was having issues bringing up the ball if the opposing Team started pressuring him a lot.

          Personally, I'd rather have Flynn then Rubio.
          Amen,

          Rubio did work against NBA players in the Olympics (world games , whatever)

          but he makes a young Reggie Miller look diesel, and he has yet to playa single game, nor commit to the sates. If his handlers were pissed he went to Minnesota, not sure they will be thrilled with Indy
          Sittin on top of the world!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            Title is misleading.
            How would that be "Dr "?
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              How would that be "Dr "?
              Well, the title says the Wolves are after Granger with the 4th pick, when it turns out that Chad Ford just brought it up as the only piece the Wolves have that the Pacers might want. There's a big difference.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post

                You might want to read my second post. I never said he was untouchable. but he is worth a hell of a lot more than the #4 pick in THIS draft. And Throwing in a late round pick or Al Jefferson is NOT enough.

                Granger is a player you try to build around, he is an established player and believe me, he will be an all star again if he ever gets a team around him.

                You might want to re-read my post. I NEVER mentioned Al Jefferson, nor a late draft pick. I said #16 which is 2 spots out of the lottery and 1 a past the 1st half of the draft. That's called a mid teen pick not a late draft pick.

                Again, I said the trade of Love, #4 & 16, plus a 7 mil TE is something that should be considered. I also said I feel it's MORE than what the T-Wolves feel Granger is worth. I'd never give it up for Granger, but I'd sure as heck would have to "seriously consider" it if it was offered.

                The T-Wolves have an opportunity to turn either the #4 or the 16 into SF that should be very good players in Johnson and George, and not have to give up Love, 7 mil TE, and keep either the #4 or 16 for another good player. Granger is a good player, but not that good to command the type of trade I've suggested.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                  Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                  Well, the title says the Wolves are after Granger with the 4th pick, when it turns out that Chad Ford just brought it up as the only piece the Wolves have that the Pacers might want. There's a big difference.
                  Don't see your point at all. Sometimes I wonder if you post stuff just to get a rise out of someone.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                    Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                    I've been meaning to ask, Can anybody promise me that Rubio isn't another Sarunas?


                    I'll even go as far as to say, if by some wild stretch of the imagination he does, then Buck will eat Jermaniac's shoes.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                      No. They can't have Granger.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        To me, it doesn't make sense for either team. It puts Minnesota in win now mode and they aren't structured that way. For the Pacers its giving up your best player/face of the franchise for either Favors (couple of years away) or Cousins (risky pick for intangibles) or Wesley Johnson (could be Danny Granger, could be Corey Magette light)

                        I don't mean to sound like a homer, but I would not do this on either side, but for the Pacers, I'd want the #4 and the rights to Ricky Rubio. To me, it's just not worth starting ALL the way over, unless you can immediately get two pieces.

                        Look Danny is a top 10 scorer, in his prime, who's a good guy. It's one of those deals where he's worth more to the Pacers than Minnesota at this moment. If you trade him you need a nice group of youngster ala OKC to move forward with. You'd need to convince Rubio to come over to the Pacers, but if you woo him by saying you are going to be the man, the franchise guy, I think it's possible.

                        It's all blantant speculation anyway.

                        I agree with you about acquiring #4 and Rubio for Granger. And I endorse the idea. However we would have to find a way for salaries to match. How do draft choices factor into the financial equation?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                          I'm not as high on Granger as most of you but this is nuts. Giving up a proven player for a risk at #4? Giving up DG for what...are any of them franchise players? There is no promise that ANY top draft pick will be 1/2 as good as anybody currently starting. Sure, you can project what they will do but at least with DG you KNOW you have a solid player. We have so many needs that I just can't see creating another hole in order to get a "possibility".
                          You are correct that we have many needs. They will never be filled while Granger is in his prime. Unless we can get lucky in the free agent market after next season. If we used Granger for a trade chip, take Johnson at 4, Henry at 10and bring over Rubio I think we have a situation similar to the Thunder. And we would have cap room to pursue free agents next year.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                            Who's to say that Rubio would want to come play for us?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                              If I was trading Granger to the Wolves, I'd be getting Monroe at #4 (assuming Wall, Turner, and Favors are 1,2,3), and Johny Damon and their #16 and expiring contracts... I don't want Rubio (too many unknowns).

                              I know that might seem a lot, but Danny's a proven franchise guy, which don't come around very often.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                                Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                                If I was trading Granger to the Wolves, I'd be getting Monroe at #4 (assuming Wall, Turner, and Favors are 1,2,3), and Johny Damon and their #16 and expiring contracts... I don't want Rubio (too many unknowns).

                                I know that might seem a lot, but Danny's a proven franchise guy, which don't come around very often.
                                No wonder the Wolves suck. They're signing old, over the hill baseball players to their squad.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X