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

I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

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

  • I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

    Been thinking about this. Danny is playing really good right now. His stock is fairly high and will get higher if he keeps it up. But a few thoughts...

    1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.

    2) I like Darren Collison, but there are PG's available that could really push Indiana to a legit contender status. Darren just isn't there yet. He's solid though and I think he could get there. Which is why I think you keep DC.

    A George Hill, Granger and 2012 first rounder could net you something really nice. Boston might take that for Rondo and another contact. Maybe you get Nash and Dudley or Lopez or Gortat. I dunno, my point is, trading Danny Granger while his stock is high, makes so much sense right now and could not only make you a legit contender for the title depending on what you get back, but also could pave the way for #24 to become a top SF in the league.

    I love Danny. His defense, in my eyes, has been amazing . And his shooting is coming back. But it just makes sense to trade him. Sometimes the difference between a title contender and a title pretender is whether or not your GM has the guts to see past loyalty and make a cutthroat move at the deadline. This is the move. Danny is the peice.

  • #2
    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

    Who starts at shooting guard.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

      Lance Stephenson of course. Best 5 minute player in the NBA.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

        Paul George is not ready yet.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

          We'd better not be trading Danny. As to the whole "stepping on PG's toes" thing, I don't see it at all. Danny is the most accomplished scorer on the roster so I'd expect him to carry the burden to score. PG just has to grow into his role. And to do that he has to work on his handle. Until then, we'd better not be trading Danny.

          What we need to do at the deadline is get us a point guard, point blank.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Who starts at shooting guard.
            LOL, I don't think he thought that far ahead.

            To the OP. Didn't you just see what happened to this team with out Danny Granger in the line up. Blow loss to the Cavs. Blow out loss to Philly earlier this year.

            I'd love to get Rondo but why would Boston make that trade? They are about to have +30 Million come off the books. Granger and Pierce on the same team is redundant. Boston is going to go after an elite Big man to reload for one final run.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Who starts at shooting guard.
              Depends.

              I like the Stephenson idea for a few reasons. One, he'll move the ball around and create more assist s on easy baskets. Two, his maturity this year has been fairly understated. He's staring to get it. Three, he's not a selfish player. He won't take Pauls shots.

              But they might get a decent two guard in the deal, or you could switch DC with George Hill.

              Hill is going to get offered a lot of money. Matching that and the Hibbert offer will be tough to swallow, especially if your still in the middle of the pack in the East. Why not package Hill with Danny and get a really good player to push you over the top and save yourself from having to either pay Hill a ton of cash, or let him go for nothing .

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                Depends.

                I like the Stephenson idea for a few reasons.
                Well I don't. And I'm hoping the Pacers brass agrees with me.

                Secondly, I don't think the best thing for Paul's development is necessarily trading away the guy he looks up to on the team.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                  Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                  We'd better not be trading Danny. As to the whole "stepping on PG's toes" thing, I don't see it at all. Danny is the most accomplished scorer on the roster so I'd expect him to carry the burden to score. PG just has to grow into his role. And to do that he has to work on his handle. Until then, we'd better not be trading Danny.

                  What we need to do at the deadline is get us a point guard, point blank.
                  Ok

                  How are you getting a point guard better than DC, without trading anything. Seriously, a lot of you guys seem to think we can upgrade the point guard position without trading anything good. That's a fantasy.

                  You can't upgrade that position anymore, unless you make with the goods.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                    I have been thinking 'contender' in perhaps the season after next IF PG and much more so Lance exceed expectations. And Danny will be here.
                    Last edited by mcampbellarch; 02-19-2012, 03:27 AM.
                    ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                      Danny isn't going anywhere. Larry likes this team and unless he sees a move to put us over the top THIS season, he won't do anything big. And he's not gonna trade Danny after he stuck through the terrible seasons.

                      Why would boston trade Rondo for Granger? Where does Danny play for them? And sorry, Danny for Nash is a bad trade for us.

                      Why are people so eager to trade Danny? Paul loves Danny, they work out together all the time. Paul has said how much he appreciates Danny for taking him under his wing. Paul and Danny work just fine together. Right now, Paul needs to stop taking so many 3's and start driving. Trading Danny doesn't make Paul better, it probably upsets him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                        I could put this in about any of 30 or so threads but I'm just going to stick it here.

                        I can go to bed tonight & every night this season safe in the knowledge that Danny Granger will be a Pacer.

                        All of this talk about Monta Ellis, Rajon Rondo, whoever else is totally moot.

                        Larry Bird will not trade Granger unless he gets a one sided upgrade and no it will not be for a talented malcontent.

                        If he could get (but he can't) Dwight Howard then yes Danny will be part of the package.

                        But short of an absolute blockbuster, no Danny is not going anywhere.

                        Some of you will just have to suffer, as I did through all of the O'Neal years, with the fact that no matter how you try, no matter what trade you come up with, no matter how much sense it makes to you & yes even those of you who want to move Danny on so that way Paul George can somehow overnight become Dr. J, that Danny Granger has Larry Bird's loyalty.

                        Now once Bird leaves all bets are off, but till he's gone, unless Danny asks for it himself, he is a Pacer.

                        Some of us will be unhappy about this.

                        Others of us will be very happy about this.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                          Yes, I would enjoy 13-game losing streaks. Let's ship him out of here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            LOL, I don't think he thought that far ahead.

                            To the OP. Didn't you just see what happened to this team with out Danny Granger in the line up. Blow loss to the Cavs. Blow out loss to Philly earlier this year.

                            I'd love to get Rondo but why would Boston make that trade? They are about to have +30 Million come off the books. Granger and Pierce on the same team is redundant. Boston is going to go after an elite Big man to reload for one final run.
                            What elite big man are the Celtics getting and how are they getting this elite big man without trading Rondo?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                              Paul George in his 2 games this season without Danny Granger:

                              @PHI: 13 Points on 4/16 shooting, 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals, 5 turnovers and 5 fouls.

                              @CLE: 11 Points on 4/14 shooting, 8 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 turnover and 4 fouls.

                              Granted, it's only a 2 game sample but that's all we got.

                              There was a poster who said that Paul George plays off someone else. He has big games when the team is playing nice and some other player is clicking. I think that's true. Paul is a young player and plays off the momentum. Which is completely fine since he is still very young and raw.

                              It is also one of the reasons why we need Danny Granger.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X