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

Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

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

  • Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

    The exception to that stand is if someone were to slip down to them unexpectedly. I'm not sure how I feel about Luke Babbitt, and I'm not a fan of Ed Davis or Al-Farouq Aminu. I could be wrong on all three of them, but I don't see any of them as having a position.

    To me there is a big difference between being a combo player and a tweener. A combo means a player can succeed at multiple (mostly two) positions vs. the opponent's first unit. A tweener means they can't and are likely relegated to the bench or mediocre results.

    Gordon Hayward is a SF, and he would eventually be a combo 3/2. A lot of that, while he won't be a star right away, will be determined by who he can guard. As he stretches out his range, consistently, he'll be a quality shooter with 3pt range, and he will be an intelligent shooter. He will also be a willing defender, ranging toward willing and able.

    I'm not a Granger fan, at least not to the point of he's untouchable or the face of the franchise. Being the best talent on an average at best team isn't necessarily one to build a team around, especially if there is little correlation to him playing and the Pacers winning. He's a low efficiency, high volume shooter, and he's not always a willing defender.

    I'm not suggesting dumping Granger for cheap or that Hayward would challenge a year or two to start, but at some point, I could see Hayward being the starter as he improves his range and strength. He's a play maker, both for himself and his teammates.

    I would love to see the Pacers reshape their roster, using Granger and/or expiring contracts to land a high ceiling point guard. Knowing Dunleavy has a year left on his contract, the pressure on Hayward to start right away wouldn't be there. For some reason I'm sold on Hibbert and Hansbrough as the "Smits and high energy PF" combination the Pacers had in the 90's. Maybe I'm way off on that.

    Dan Dakich seems to think Brandon Rush is going to be really good, and this is just his second year in the NBA. I tend to agree with him in that regard.

    Now...if the Pacers can get a point guard who can make this team better, either through the draft (doubtful at #10) or dealing the pick, I'm all for it. A better PG situation would likely improve the team's efficiency, most especially's Granger, assuming he is suited to play off the ball more and not stall the offense. He's becoming too much like Ron Artest in that regard.

    The team is a rudderless ship on the court, and this offseason the Pacers have a lot of assets they can use to make changes. I doubt the draft can directly yield what they want, so let's hope they either use the pick to get what they need by dealing it or drafting what they would need to be able to make other types of deals to get this team some leadership and talent at the PG spot.
    Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

  • #2
    Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

    If he comes here, he would be primarily guarding Dahntay and Dunleavy, and occasionally McRoberts when O'B wants to try Hayward at the 4.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

      So you're suggesting that we draft Gordon Heyward with the 10th pick, and not only that, but that we trade away Danny Granger so that Heyward will eventually be our starting SF?

      Is this a joke thread?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
        So you're suggesting that we draft Gordon Heyward with the 10th pick, and not only that, but that we trade away Danny Granger so that Heyward will eventually be our starting SF?

        Is this a joke thread?
        Thing is, it's not that unrealistic, if we got some pieces for Granger. We're not trading Granger, though.
        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


        • #5
          Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

          Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
          So you're suggesting that we draft Gordon Heyward with the 10th pick, and not only that, but that we trade away Danny Granger so that Heyward will eventually be our starting SF?

          Is this a joke thread?

          I bet at one point someone said, "You mean to tell me you'd want Danny Granger to start? Is this a joke?"

          Do you realize how inefficient Danny Granger is on offense? His FG% has tumbled as his role has expanded. He leads the team in turnover average, which isn't a good thing even though he leads the team in minutes played. High volume, low percentage shooters isn't a good thing. You can't be mesmerized by points per game. On a team that produces a great number of possessions per game, on the 29th best offensive rebounding team in the league, given that he is a horrid defender, his production (not just his scoring) could be duplicated in a combination of redistributing shots throughout the offense and finding an improved defender.

          Man...he averages 24 points per game. He must be a stud. Signed, Antawn Jamison.

          It's clear you really didn't read what I posted, given the way you summed up what I wrote. My MAIN point of my post is to improve this team's PG play. One way to do that is to use the draft pick to do it, and since it doesn't appear at #10 to be much direct help there, you either deal it or draft in such a way to increase flexibility elsewhere to make a deal.

          I would much rather have a definitive talent and leader at the PG spot on the roster, along with Hayward at the SF spot going forward, than Granger and what the Pacers have now at the PG spot. Granger is the Pacers' best asset, but from a big picture perspective, no team will achieve what they want with him as their best player.

          The Pacers are second in the league in possessions. The Pacers are 29th in the league in offensive rebounding. Their leading scorer is a forward shooting 43% from the field. If you think the dealing of him is in anyway close to being a joke, you really don't understand much about the game.
          Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Thing is, it's not that unrealistic, if we got some pieces for Granger. We're not trading Granger, though.

            Sadly you're right, and the flaw of the Pacers has been over the last decade building around players who are very inefficient on both ends of the floor.
            Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

              Well Granger's efficiency dropped this past season due to injury, he had to settle for bad jump shots instead of taking it to the rim and mixing it up as he did a year ago when he was an all star. That year he was an insanely efficient scorer.

              He wasn't running around screens and getting good open looks this year because he was hobbled. During the 08-09 season the Pacers ran plays for him to curl underneath the basket to catch the ball in stride around the free throw line, too which he could then either drive it or pop up for a relatively easy jumper.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                Originally posted by Jim R View Post
                I bet at one point someone said, "You mean to tell me you'd want Danny Granger to start? Is this a joke?"

                Do you realize how inefficient Danny Granger is on offense? His FG% has tumbled as his role has expanded. He leads the team in turnover average, which isn't a good thing even though he leads the team in minutes played. High volume, low percentage shooters isn't a good thing. You can't be mesmerized by points per game. On a team that produces a great number of possessions per game, on the 29th best offensive rebounding team in the league, given that he is a horrid defender, his production (not just his scoring) could be duplicated in a combination of redistributing shots throughout the offense and finding an improved defender.

                Man...he averages 24 points per game. He must be a stud. Signed, Antawn Jamison.

                It's clear you really didn't read what I posted, given the way you summed up what I wrote. My MAIN point of my post is to improve this team's PG play. One way to do that is to use the draft pick to do it, and since it doesn't appear at #10 to be much direct help there, you either deal it or draft in such a way to increase flexibility elsewhere to make a deal.

                I would much rather have a definitive talent and leader at the PG spot on the roster, along with Hayward at the SF spot going forward, than Granger and what the Pacers have now at the PG spot. Granger is the Pacers' best asset, but from a big picture perspective, no team will achieve what they want with him as their best player.

                The Pacers are second in the league in possessions. The Pacers are 29th in the league in offensive rebounding. Their leading scorer is a forward shooting 43% from the field. If you think the dealing of him is in anyway close to being a joke, you really don't understand much about the game.


                Puff, Puff, pass
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                  Let's hope we find Reggie instead of settling for Alford. Him and Chuck Person would be a pretty good combo for a while. And who knows, down the road we might see the playoffs!
                  "man, PG has been really good."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                    Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                    Let's hope we find Reggie instead of settling for Alford. Him and Chuck Person would be a pretty good combo for a while. And who knows, down the road we might see the playoffs!
                    Which makes me think....I've seen very little of Person when he was a Pacer as I was a youngin right around then. Similar size to Granger and known as a range shooter. How did he in his prime compare to our Danny Granger? talent....play style...etc
                    "man, PG has been really good."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                      Originally posted by Jim R View Post
                      I bet at one point someone said, "You mean to tell me you'd want Danny Granger to start? Is this a joke?"

                      Do you realize how inefficient Danny Granger is on offense? His FG% has tumbled as his role has expanded. He leads the team in turnover average, which isn't a good thing even though he leads the team in minutes played. High volume, low percentage shooters isn't a good thing. You can't be mesmerized by points per game. On a team that produces a great number of possessions per game, on the 29th best offensive rebounding team in the league, given that he is a horrid defender, his production (not just his scoring) could be duplicated in a combination of redistributing shots throughout the offense and finding an improved defender.

                      Man...he averages 24 points per game. He must be a stud. Signed, Antawn Jamison.

                      It's clear you really didn't read what I posted, given the way you summed up what I wrote. My MAIN point of my post is to improve this team's PG play. One way to do that is to use the draft pick to do it, and since it doesn't appear at #10 to be much direct help there, you either deal it or draft in such a way to increase flexibility elsewhere to make a deal.

                      I would much rather have a definitive talent and leader at the PG spot on the roster, along with Hayward at the SF spot going forward, than Granger and what the Pacers have now at the PG spot. Granger is the Pacers' best asset, but from a big picture perspective, no team will achieve what they want with him as their best player.

                      The Pacers are second in the league in possessions. The Pacers are 29th in the league in offensive rebounding. Their leading scorer is a forward shooting 43% from the field. If you think the dealing of him is in anyway close to being a joke, you really don't understand much about the game.
                      I agree with the basis of your post here, and if we could use Danny in a mega deal for someone like Chris Paul I would be all for it. But I just doubt that is a possibility at all.

                      I think Danny would be the biggest beneficiary of improved PG play. He is not a play maker by any means he is more of a shot maker. And I think his efficiency has suffered mainly because he has garnered more attention from opposing defenses as his scoring average has increased. Granger is a very good piece to have moving forward. He can shoot from deep, stretch the floor and give you pretty consistent offensive production. And that should get even better with improved PG play.

                      As far as Hayward? No thanks. Way too passive for me. He has got some talent no doubt but I view him as a quality bench player at best. He will not be a good defender in the pros willing or not. He will be able to score, and make plays for his teammates as you have said but that doesn't make you a starter. Would I mind us having Hayward on the team? No, I would actually love to see him as a replacement for Dunleavy on our roster and a back up to Granger. But at this time? I just think we are better served going another direction.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                        I would agree with the original posters theory though that if we don't draft hayward then I want the pick traded to bring in a real point guard. I want to get Danny some help at point guard, not a prospect that we have to develop for 3-4 years. Only to be a become a pretty good player during the last year of Danny's contract. When he is in his thirties.

                        Get the man some help now! Turn that pick into Collison! Turn those other expirings into another allstar caliber player.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                          Jim-

                          Nice try. I don't disagree at all re Granger. You won't find many
                          others on PD who concur though. When it comes to DG they 'see
                          what they believe'.

                          Just for the sake of discussion though, I'm not sure who is out there
                          in the PG realm (wether existing or in the draft) to make that kind of
                          move a fit right now.

                          If Granger and an expiring deal is enough to bring back an existing,
                          top-5-6 PG, it's worth doing. But I doubt it is. And obviously, there
                          is no PG beyond Wall (who is presumably unobtainable) worth trading
                          into the top few slots in this draft for.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                            Puff, Puff, pass
                            HAHAHAHA!!!!

                            How did I get left out of that circle?

                            I don't really like Gordon Hayward as an NBA prospect. But the sentiment about possibly trading Granger in his prime might be the best thing for the franchise long term. I wouldn't do it, but that possibility might become a reality if we just can't put together a winner within his career timeline.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Any more, if the Pacers don't get Hayward, I want them to deal #10...

                              Any decision about moving the 10th and Granger should not center around Hayward. To me he is not one of those cannot miss prospects like Durant that will turn your franchise around.

                              I am not opposed to moving Granger if we can get back a top 5 point guard or shooting guard, but I just do not see that happening.

                              I did find it rather humorous that you wanted Dunleavy to start. The guy has played a total of 29 games in two years. That knee is not something I am willing to take a chance. That would thrust Hayward into the starting spot and no way is he ready for that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X