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

ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

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

  • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
    Look up scorer Melo is a scorer DG is just an elite shooter. if he could dribble it would be different. Like I said JOB really mis uses the guy.
    Exactly why we should not think about trading any of our core guys before we bring in a new coach.

    Comment


    • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
      Exactly why we should not think about trading any of our core guys before we bring in a new coach.
      Like Dan Dachiak and Mike Wells said to day we lack a number one player who can create his own shot and be a finisher for this team and be an elite scorer. We need a Eric Gordon type player a guy who can handle the basketball and score the basketball. Dan said in 2 yrs we should target EJ when he will be a RFA i agree but i see the clipps keeping him. But I agree with that take we dont have a closer we have an elite shooter in Danny but we dont have a true number 1. I hope Paul devlopes fast enoght to be that while Danny is still in his prime.

      Comment


      • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        Like Dan Dachiak and Mike Wells said to day we lack a number one player who can create his own shot and be a finisher for this team and be an elite scorer. We need a Eric Gordon type player a guy who can handle the basketball and score the basketball. Dan said in 2 yrs we should target EJ when he will be a RFA i agree but i see the clipps keeping him. But I agree with that take we dont have a closer we have an elite shooter in Danny but we dont have a true number 1. I hope Paul devlopes fast enoght to be that while Danny is still in his prime.
        I think PG can develop that fast. He's half a season into his rookie year and he is already miles ahead of where he was in summer league. I am very impressed with the kid and he can play SG, not a doubt in my mind about that. I don't think we will need to target Eric Gordon because of George.

        And I think Danny can create his own shot. I see him drive into the lane at will when he wants to. The problem is that often teams collapse on Danny and he isn't getting bailed out when that happens. If we have more offensive threats around him, teams won't collapse so hard on him.

        Comment


        • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
          I think PG can develop that fast. He's half a season into his rookie year and he is already miles ahead of where he was in summer league. I am very impressed with the kid and he can play SG, not a doubt in my mind about that. I don't think we will need to target Eric Gordon because of George. And I think Danny can create his own shot. I see him drive into the lane at will when he wants to. The problem is that often teams collapse on Danny and he isn't getting bailed out when that happens. If we have more offensive threats around him, teams won't collapse so hard on him.
          i agree but i think if he is gonna devlope that fast he needs to be logging 25+ mins per game the rest of the season he needs to keep learning the nba game. The only way is getting more PT. That means Dunleavy's mins are cut a lot which wont happen. That might set him back in his devlopement but i firmly belive he has his heart on being an elite player so he will be hopefully sooner rather than later.

          Comment


          • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

            I want to see Danny play for another coach, in a Pacer uniform, same with our other players. I don't think we can fully judge our talent level til another man is in charge.

            I understand the whole coach thing is a broken record, but honestly, how can we move forward without a new one.
            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

            Comment


            • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

              Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
              Iggy is averaging 13.9 points per game this year. Regressing alert.
              Thats what they started saying about Hedo too, but then he gets in the right enviroment, and presto.
              "Did we learn anything?"-Jonathan Ames

              "No, but thats okay, It's a good thing to stay in the dark about things - it keeps life more interesting."- George Christopher

              Comment


              • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                Look up scorer Melo is a scorer DG is just an elite shooter. if he could dribble it would be different. Like I said JOB really mis uses the guy. A scorer to me is a guy who can get his shot whenever he wants Eric Gordon,Monta,Lebron Kobe KD35, that what seprates Danny from being a scorer and being a first option on a contending team.
                Danny is too a scorer, and looking up in the dictionary is comical, because its an opinion either way, not a fact

                Have you not seen Danny take a player off the dribble?

                I sure have
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment


                • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                  I don't know if that's true. (Needing a player to go one on one at the end of the game) It's a nice thing to have..but often times it's much better to have a well run play..

                  I mean, DC can create his own shot and score, but I'd rather Granger take the last shot, for now at least.
                  Boston, for example, also has players that can create their own shot..but more often then not, they run a play for Ray Allen..to get him open..for a shot..
                  The Pacers used to do this with a guy named Reggie..

                  Why can't we run a play for our best player to get him an open shot. Why can't we recognize that his strength is not to go one on one, but rather he is primarily a spot up shooter, despite his size. And we need to be trying to get him a shot, rather than giving him the ball and asking him to create.

                  This isn't brain surgery. Danny Granger is our best player. Our best player isn't good at one on one and needs to get good shots to knock them down. So figure out a way to get him good shots. (Or use him as a decoy and set up someone else..)
                  Last edited by Sookie; 01-20-2011, 05:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                    I don't know if that's true.

                    I mean, DC can create his own shot and score, but I'd rather Granger take the last shot, for now at least.
                    Boston, for example, also has players that can create their own shot..but more often then not, they run a play for Ray Allen..to get him open..for a shot..
                    The Pacers used to do this with a guy named Reggie..

                    Why can't we run a play for our best player to get him an open shot. Why can't we recognize that his strength is not to go one on one, but rather he is primarily a spot up shooter, despite his size. And we need to be trying to get him a shot, rather than giving him the ball and asking him to create.

                    This isn't brain surgery. Danny Granger is our best player. Our best player isn't good at one on one and needs to get good shots to knock them down. So figure out a way to get him good shots. (Or use him as a decoy and set up someone else..)
                    Instead of using him like Reggie in winning time we use him like LeBron what a bad coaching job by JOB. I would think a retarted person would be able to tell DG isnt an iso player.

                    Comment


                    • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                      Jim R. hit the nail directly on the head a few months ago in a
                      post when he labeled Granger a 'volume chucker'.

                      Comment


                      • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                        Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
                        Iggy is averaging 13.9 points per game this year. Regressing alert.
                        He's also been injured for part of this season and is playing under Doug Collins....specifically a new Coach that may ( or may not ) be using him the right way.

                        I wouldn't take his performance this season as an indication of whether he is regressing or not. Compared to previous years and his level of improvement.....given his less then stellar performance so far this season...you can arguably say that Granger has regressed a little as well.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          Like Dan Dachiak and Mike Wells said to day we lack a number one player who can create his own shot and be a finisher for this team and be an elite scorer. We need a Eric Gordon type player a guy who can handle the basketball and score the basketball. Dan said in 2 yrs we should target EJ when he will be a RFA i agree but i see the clipps keeping him. But I agree with that take we dont have a closer we have an elite shooter in Danny but we dont have a true number 1. I hope Paul devlopes fast enoght to be that while Danny is still in his prime.
                          Minus the ELITE SCORER tagline....Iggy is able to create for himself and others, is able to attack the basket and is a very solid defender.

                          I know that many of you disagree....but PG is not untouchable. IMHO...if the FO can get a Player that they think will impact this Team with an infusion of PROVEN talent....PG would be sent packing.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                            We def need to do something other than stand pat and let our guys expire and expect to make a splash in the FA market......simply put, there is not "Splash" to be made in F Agency.....A - There are few, if any FAs that are good enough to turn this team around and B - Its VERY unlikely they come here anyway.

                            Plan A - Bring in Iggy & Brand

                            Indiana Gets - Iggy, Brand, Brackins, Mahinmi
                            Phili Gets - Butler, Ajinca, Dominique Jones, Posey, Ford, Indy 1st 2011
                            Dallas Gets - Dunleavy, Solomon Jones, Nocioni, Battie

                            We are IMO contenders in the East with this lineup with or without JOB
                            Phili moves all crippling contracts gets young prospects in Ajinca & Jones with a 1st
                            Dallas fills Butlers void with Dunleavy & Nocioni without giving up much of anything

                            Win for all involved

                            Plan B - Go get Favors

                            Indiana - Favors, Udrih, NJ 1st, Sac 1st
                            New Jersey - Granger, Kirilenko, Thompson, Watson
                            Utah - Murphy, Vujacic, Garcia, NJ 1st
                            Sac - Harris, Damion James, Solo, Elson

                            We get Favors along with 2 1st rounders to go with out own....likely 3 lotto picks
                            NJ gets Thompson, Granger and Kirilenko to put with Lopez
                            Utah is prob least likely to play along but Andrei is prob gone after ssn anyway
                            Sac gets Harris the a PG they covet as well as James a talented SF prospect while also moving the 2 conrtacts they wanted to move.

                            Maybe should go in trades section but I think these are 2 trade possibilities that could very well happen based on rumors....well maybe the Phili hasn't been rumored....but it makes a ton of sense, and is the one I would prefer.

                            Comment


                            • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                              Granger is a good player. A franchise level player? No but he is still really good.

                              I am not going to lie...i'd probably be in favor of a deal of Granger for Favors.

                              I don't know enough about Favors for sure but from what I do know I do like him.

                              I know it wouldn't make this team better in the short term but I really don't think it would set the Pacers back very far. I think that George and Favors will develop quicker than other young players.

                              You want to be playing basketball in June then you will need some good big men. Right now is probably the best time to trade Danny (depending on how you feel about PG you might want to consider it) and Derrick Favors is as good as a big man prospect as you will get for Danny.

                              Who can tell me that they don't like a team with:

                              PG: Collison/Price
                              SG: Rush
                              SF: George
                              PF: Favors/Hands
                              C: Hibbert

                              Add another top draft pick (getting rid of Danny probably means no playoffs this year but they don't seem likely with him at this point.) I think this lineup is better than a lineup of:

                              PG: Collison/Price
                              SG: Rush
                              SF: Granger/George
                              PF: ?/Hands
                              C: Hibbert

                              I know that some people are down on Roy, not as high on George, and not in favor of trading Danny. However just think about what I said above about needing some quality big men to be playing basketball in June. As more and more players are becoming face up players it makes guys like Favors and Hibbert that much more important.

                              It would be a risk to trade Danny for Derrick Favors but that's a risk i'd be willing to take.

                              Comment


                              • Re: ESPN Rumors: Granger - Nets Plan B

                                I dunno much about Favors either. I did read this though:

                                "When the first rumors came out about the New Jersey Nets acquiring Carmelo Anthony from the Denver Nuggets, the foundational piece of the trade was rookie power forward Derrick Favors. Many believed he would be an All-Star one day, perhaps the next Amar'e Stoudemire or Carlos Boozer. The Nuggets knew they needed a new franchise player if they were doing to deal Anthony, and it seemed a strong possibility that Favors might be just the right player to put next to Ty Lawson as the next one-two punch for Denver.

                                Now, nearly half way through Favors' rookie season, that possibility looks like more of a long shot. He's had his moments, like when he scored 14 points and grabbed eight rebounds against the Nuggets in mid-November, but overall it's been a fairly non-descript year for Favors thus far. He's averaging 6.6 points and 4.9 rebounds, and while he's shooting 55% from the field, he's under 60% from the line. The Nets have been showcasing him of late, letting him start six of seven games in January, but his numbers have not been much better in that role. His scoring is up slightly, at 7.3 points per game, but his rebounding has dipped to 3.6 boards per contest...

                                Will Derrick Favors be a force in the NBA when all is said and done? Perhaps. But his rookie season to date leaves a lot to be desired."

                                http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=18495

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X