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

Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

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

  • #46
    Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

    Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
    I remember being excited about Granger's defense. Lots of Scottie Pippen comparisons as well.
    Then he stopped giving a **** about defense.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      It's not that far from the truth at all. Green was highly wanted by posters on PD, RATS, and Realgm. There were numerous unhappy posters on all 3 forums when Granger got drafted over GG. The unhappiness of the GG fans subsided as Granger started looking good and GG was floundering.
      The question was about the consensus during his rookie year, not speculation before the season started.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

        Of course there's no way to tell where PG is going to land. But, here is what I like:

        1) He seems more than willing to "take over". He's a supremely confident player IMHO.

        2) PG as a very young rookie has better moves to the bucket than Danny. Once he gets stronger and matures...which is going to happen...he will be more effective at converting. Bottom line is...I have very little doubt that PG is going to be better at this.

        3) PG is already better at defense than Danny ever was. He will need to learn from rookie mistakes, but he is simply a much quicker player with more athleticism. PG's ceiling here is much higher IMO.

        BTW, I've also seen Paul make plays with the ball that I don't think Danny can even do today. Particularly passing the ball. Paul also seems like a better rebounder.

        All things considered, I think PG is the most talented prospect I've ever seen in a Pacer uniform. Yes, a prospect...so of course we can only speculate.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          To those who want PG to start NOW, here are my questions, as always:

          1) Whose scoring opportunities are you going to take away in order to move him up from the 4th option scorer he replaces in the lineup, and

          2) How upset will you be if he starts, his minutes go up, but his stats drop significantly because he stays the 4th option and doesn't get the ball away from the ball-dominant point guard?

          I think he has BETTER opportunities for showing what he can do and getting activity to develop on the second unit as it is currently constructed. If the ENTIRE starting lineup is shaken up (which would include moving someone out that will cause Great Honking Chaos on PD), then you can move Paul in.
          He's a 4th option on the second unit now. Have you been watching? In fact I think that's a slight exaggeration to assume he's a the 4th scoring option. Either there is no 4th option or he is more like the 6th or 7th option. The first 5 or 6 options are a combination of Tyler and DJ (whoever gets the ball first wins). Followed by AJ.

          Roy is not a real strong scoring threat, DC is struggling, and Granger has trouble creating his own shot. I'm trying to figure out how it is a great travesty that PG would start? How is giving someone more minutes suddenly going to force them to forget everything they ever learned about basketball and digress into a scrub?

          Everyone complains about how much better the 2nd unit is, which means we at all costs apparently keep the 2nd unit together. God forbid we try to upgrade the starting unit which plays the most minutes against the best players.

          Even if PG would start and never get an opportunity to score, (highly unlikely considering the scoring talents the first unit actually has) he would still make the first unit much better with better defense and his ability to actually move without the ball.

          This idea the PG is somehow better with the 2nd unit is some of the most crazy, ill-logical thinking I have ever heard in my life. It defies all common sense.

          As I have said in another thread, I'm pretty confident that no matter who this team had, even if it was Dwayne Wade in his rookie season; He would play on the bench and half this board would argue this is a good thing because "he needs to develop."

          These are the following reasons the "pro-Rush" crowd has come up with in the last few weeks that continue to contradict every other ill thought out idea they have:

          1. First, the whole idea that Rush should start in the first place over Dun.
          This is not hindsight- Rush isn't that good and it was quite clear Dun was a better player. (yet you wanted to start Rush- you aren't good friends with Jim are you?)

          2. The 1st unit is soft, has no one who create on his own, and DC (who can actually create) needs to stop shooting the ball so much. In addition there is 100's of complaints that the 2nd unit has to come in and rescue the game after the 1st unit gives away an early 1st quarter lead. (Again, don't we dare try to improve something that isn't working)

          3. Paul George should play on the bench because he's a "spark." I still don't know what a spark is in all my time watching basketball. Either you help your team or don't. What qualifies as being a "spark"? Also this is especially funny considering the only time PG ever really gets an opportunity to shoot is the few minutes he's in with the first unit.

          4. Paul George can't start because he needs to develop.
          Again, how is playing less minutes and having less opportunities helping his development? How is telling a young 1st round draft pick he's not good enough to start helping his development? How is having him defer to DJ helping his development? What planet are you guys on?

          There's a lot more and I really don't feel like typing them out. But really, some of these ideas are absolutely nuts.

          Edit- The worst thinking out of all of this is the idea that in the short term Indiana would be a lesser team with PG starting. This despite the fact that Rush doesn't play team defense (Rush even falls a sleep guarding his man off the ball) and is a non-factor on offense. That's probably the hardest argument to take serious.
          Last edited by mattie; 03-05-2011, 10:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

            The same people who say Rush should start and PG needs to develop are also probably the same people that argue Danny Granger needs to be traded for Ben Gordon (or some other average player they have convinced themselves is better than he is). Danny Granger is no LeBron James, so having him on the Pacers will obviously hinder them from ever winning. This is clear.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
              Yeah but I'll take any average center who is usually healthy compared to Andrew Bynum who's good for forty games a year. That'd just be sickening to have to deal with that as a fan.
              Totally. I feel sooooooo sorry for those poor Lakers fans!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                That's my hope as well.

                My point is just that wanting the ball when the clock is winding down is not nearly the same thing as shouldering the load of the team night in and night out for an 82 game season.

                I'm hopeful it happens, but by no means is it a given.
                Nothing is certain but death and taxes, but I would say all indications are that he is going to be really special for us. He's barely half way through his first season ever. Let him develop before we start talking about his ceiling.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  He's a 4th option on the second unit now. Have you been watching? In fact I think that's a slight exaggeration to assume he's a the 4th scoring option. Either there is no 4th option or he is more like the 6th or 7th option. The first 5 or 6 options are a combination of Tyler and DJ (whoever gets the ball first wins). Followed by AJ.

                  Roy is not a real strong scoring threat, DC is struggling, and Granger has trouble creating his own shot. I'm trying to figure out how it is a great travesty that PG would start? How is giving someone more minutes suddenly going to force them to forget everything they ever learned about basketball and digress into a scrub?
                  Passing over the sarcastic nature of this response, I think PG is at worst 3rd option on the second unit - the thing about that unit is that its offense is very much designed to use whoever has the best chance against the other team's bench defense. Dahntay and Tyler don't pass the ball out much (though more, I think, than many people claim, I don't think they are the "early receive never leave" black holes people love to say they are), but they usually aren't given the ball unless they are supposed to be the focal for a play.

                  What you say about the first unit is certainly true. But, even assuming that PG will maintain his strengths against other teams' starters, by moving him in and above the other players in the first unit you are saying one or more of the following:

                  1) Roy in the post is no linger a primary option for the team - something people have complained about for months if it didn't happen, and now you are dumping it in on purpose in favor of PG.

                  2) DG is not going to get the ball on offense, where he has at least been somewhat effective. Why even start him, then - and if you bench him, you are making a pretty heavy comment on his abilities and future with the team. Are you willing to do that in favor of a rookie?

                  3) DC's game is to have the ball in his hands and be a scoring option. If you take that away from him, you are (again) doing exactly what people have screamed about - forcing him to play a system that isn't his best and failing to make him effective.

                  You'd better be pretty damn sure of your guy if you do any of these things.

                  For the most part, I am not totally against PG as a 4th-option starter, but his personal statistics will drop significantly UNLESS the offense is changed to work him in. When his stats drop, who gets the blame - or do people turn on him since he 'obviously' is failing in a starting role?

                  And I know you aren't lumping me in as some kind of "Rush lover" who only wants PG coming from the bench because I am emotionally invested in Brandon. After all, I'm one of the moronic Dunleavy lovers.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    To those who want PG to start NOW, here are my questions, as always:

                    1) Whose scoring opportunities are you going to take away in order to move him up from the 4th option scorer he replaces in the lineup, and

                    2) How upset will you be if he starts, his minutes go up, but his stats drop significantly because he stays the 4th option and doesn't get the ball away from the ball-dominant point guard?

                    I think he has BETTER opportunities for showing what he can do and getting activity to develop on the second unit as it is currently constructed. If the ENTIRE starting lineup is shaken up (which would include moving someone out that will cause Great Honking Chaos on PD), then you can move Paul in.


                    I'm not sure if I want to start Paul George but I can see why people would want to start him.Right now the 2 guard spot is a question mark going into the offseason.It's a position we may look to spend alot of money on (Crawford,Richardson) so why not see if George can play that spot so we don't have to spend alot of money on getting another one.

                    To answer your first question this team doesn't have good enough scorers to worry about whether inserting Paul George takes shots away from Granger,Hibbert,Collision ect.

                    Secondly we don't even have a second big scorer right now.Granger averages 20ppg and after that we have two guys averaging 13pts a game.There is more then enough room to add a second scorer Whether that becomes George or we trade/sign somebody. Hibbert would also benefit at this stage of his career being a 3rd scorer/option.Our starting lineup right now is way to easy to defend.I don't know if Paul George would help any but I would be interested to find out.
                    Last edited by nyballer31; 03-07-2011, 02:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny

                      I think people just need to let him(paul) grow... everyone wants him to succeed but ultimately it is up to him and the people around him (coaches, friends, family, teammates, agent).

                      On another note

                      Honestly we should be happy that Danny has stayed around Indianapolis as long as he had, maybe he is no Kobe or even Carmelo but he is a good player and could definitely go to another team and start.

                      PG is okay, but like I have said before you will never know how good he is until we have plays called specifically for him, and until other teams start game planning for and scouting him on tapes.

                      Can't believe how much unappreciation Danny gets on some of these threads.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X