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

Still think Granger is not our answer

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

  • #31
    Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

    Watching this made me realize the vocal presence of Bull's fans there. I hope we drown them out Saturday. At floor level no less.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

      Those screens were pathetic. Tyler has to improve that.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

        Originally posted by Blink View Post
        Wtf?
        I bring it up because I'm really trying to think of an answer to how many "Robins" on teams currently competing in the playoffs can't defend their position better than Danny OR create a quality shot for themselves or a teammate better than Danny, while already chipping in what he does.

        The vast majority of the #2 scoring options on the teams currently in the playoffs, especially those that are expected to get out of the first round, can at least do 1 of those 2 things - in most cases they can do both of those 2 things better than Danny can, on top being able to essentially do what he does as far as scoring methods.

        There are even some teams where even the 3rd or 4th scoring option is equal to or better at those 2 things than Danny is.
        Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

          Originally posted by Day-V View Post
          TBH, I was standing there going "No, no, no-Thank God" for those shots.
          Me too
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

            Originally posted by jcouts View Post
            He didn't lose the game for us by any means, but he's not the long term answer at SF if we ever want to get past the first round.
            WTF!!!

            I want a little of that thing you're smoking!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
              He's not a great one on one scorer, and those are the types of guys that tend to succeed in late game possessions. There's nothing wrong with being a really good #2 scoring option in this league, as there are very few guys that are true #1's. Be happy with what we have, but could we use a #1 guy? Yeah, absolutely.
              Unfortunately there's only a handful of players good enough to be "#1 guys," and the only way to get one is through the draft, or already have one so you can attract another through free agency.

              Your best best is to lose as much as possible, get a high draft pick, and hope that Bird doesn't fall in love with a European stiff.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

                Originally posted by ensergio View Post
                WTF!!!

                I want a little of that thing you're smoking!
                So if everyone thinks Granger is the long term solution at SF, and we get this prized create-his-own shot SG...let's think about the final minute of the game against a team like the Bulls -

                We have Granger in at SF. We have this prized SG we're all talking about...let's just say it's EJ for fun.

                Is Paul on the bench?

                If so, who's guarding Rose? It sure ain't Granger or Collison. Is it EJ?

                Is Paul going to be a 6th man until Danny retires?

                I'm assuming people aren't counting on Paul being a #1, since people are talking about going out and getting this prized SG. I'm not sold that Paul's going to be a clear cut #1 scoring option. To me, he seems more like an ideal #2 option or, as I think the trend will be, a 1a/1b option that teams like the Thunder have with Durant/Westbrook.

                Either way, I like him better for that #2 role than Danny.
                Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

                  Danny would make a great #2. He only gets heat because he's our #1 player right now but he's not in that tier with Rose, Lebron, DWade, Pierce, Garnett, Allen, Dwight, Mello, Amare, Love, etc. I'm just talking the east here. I know we could not acquire Al Horford for Danny. Maybe not Josh Smith. At 20 years old, I woud not trade away Jrue Holiday to get Danny either. The way Deng plays defense I seriously question who the better player is between him and Danny. The same can be said for Iggy. Danny might beat them on offense, but defense is the other side of the coin and their values get close or match his when you consider the whole package.

                  IOW, he's not a top 10 player in the east which makes it virtually impossible for him to be a Batman and really lead this team to contention. That is the expectation of a #1. Perhaps that's unfair and we shouldn't expect this team as presently constructed to get past the first round. Maybe with some age we go a bit further, but this team is not going to contend until there are more changes...because the talent level is not high enough.

                  Edit: This is a numbers game. Danny will be on the backside of his career by the time Paul George is fully bloomed. IOW, not the best timing to peak as a team. That's probably a prime reason why Danny needs to be traded at some point...for more youth.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 04-22-2011, 01:09 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Those screens were pathetic. Tyler has to improve that.
                    I agree, but would add that our ball handlers are not very good at setting their man up to get picked either.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

                      Originally posted by jcouts View Post
                      I bring it up because I'm really trying to think of an answer to how many "Robins" on teams currently competing in the playoffs can't defend their position better than Danny OR create a quality shot for themselves or a teammate better than Danny, while already chipping in what he does.

                      The vast majority of the #2 scoring options on the teams currently in the playoffs, especially those that are expected to get out of the first round, can at least do 1 of those 2 things - in most cases they can do both of those 2 things better than Danny can, on top being able to essentially do what he does as far as scoring methods.

                      There are even some teams where even the 3rd or 4th scoring option is equal to or better at those 2 things than Danny is.
                      Danny is holding Luol Deng to 40 percent shooting for the series, danny is also averaging the second mosts assists on the team, and our leading assist guy (collison) is only averaging about 1 more per game. He'd likely have even more if our players could hit the shots that are made for them.

                      You don't have a point whatsoever, and even if you did you phrased it in a really bad way. You claimed granger isn't the answer at SF if we're ever going to the second round as if he ISNT a top 5is SF in the league, it's the one position where we typically have a better player than the opposing team. The answer is to either develop, or acquire more talent around him.

                      You must not have liked reggie much... He was our number one option and danny is a better defender and rebounder than reggie and at least as good of a passer (not comparing them overall just in the salient aspects brought up by jcouts).

                      If you can make an absolute homerun trade by trading danny sure, noone in the league almost is 100 percent untouchable. But the bottom line is

                      A. Danny is paid like a second option, yet is forced to be a first option, despite being the focus of the bulls defense he's upped his game in the playoffs, and is at his best when he can play off another player. Most players as good as granger are getting payed signifcantly more money, see Johnson, Joe, or Gay, Rudy...

                      B. Danny is actually a damn good defensive player when he's free to focus on it rather than having to take over offensively to give us a chance, do you not remember when hibbert was playing MIP basketball early in the year? Danny was phenomenal defensively, then hibbert fell off a cliff and danny was forced to be our offense again, Ditto when tyler was tearing it up.

                      C. Danny is an elite shooter, one of the best in the league, yet he's on a team where noone else is enough of a threat to prevent doubles most nights, he shoots a respectable percentage for someone that plays like he does and attracts the double, get some more credible threats and his efficiency will skyrocket, he'll eat teams if he can gets some uncontested looks at the net.

                      Lastly it's hard to rag on danny when he and paul george are the only players that have stepped up their game considerably in the playoffs consistantly so far. If Danny is somehow our second best player then i have no doubt that we win at least 50 games and compete for homecourt advantage in the playoffs.

                      As for other teams second options...

                      Danny would be far and away the second best player in orlando, especially with howard attracting so much attention in the middle, if Danny were on dwights team today then they would have a good shot at winning the title.

                      Danny would be the top offensive option in philadelphia. Danny would also be the second option in chicago, and one of atlanta's top options.

                      EDIT:

                      Yikes those were some awful screens by tyler. Makes me miss the davis's all the more. For such a tough intense guy Tyler sets screens like my little sister.
                      Last edited by daschysta; 04-22-2011, 01:17 PM.
                      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

                        Granger is the long term solution at SF. He just isn't the longterm solution as our best player.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Still think Granger is not our answer

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                          Edit: This is a numbers game. Danny will be on the backside of his career by the time Paul George is fully bloomed. IOW, not the best timing to peak as a team. That's probably a prime reason why Danny needs to be traded at some point...for more youth.
                          I don't know about that. Danny plays an old man's game. He doesn't beat people off athletic ability or speed.

                          I can't stand some of the stupid shots he takes. I think an off season with a good coach will benefit Danny a lot. He should work on his post up game, because I think he could definitely improve there. I almost wish we'd trade Granger to a contender. He gets so much crap from Pacers fans I just don't understand it. He's not a number 1 option, he's not paid like a number 1 option, what do you want him to do?!
                          Last edited by righteouscool; 04-22-2011, 01:46 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X