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

Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

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

  • #61
    Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    Even if you are correct about whats needed to win a championship. This is not the year to trade Danny, it would be the year his contract is an expiring. Anyone really think Danny is going to regress so much in 2 years that he will cease to be the best player on this team? I don't.
    i'm against any Danny trades that aren't clear upgrades. But if there's such a trade, you trade him yesterday.

    It makes no sense whatsoever to wait for his contract to become an expiring. If Danny was on a bad contract, that's one thing. But he's on a decent deal and you aren't going to get more for him in 2 years.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      It's usually forgotten......but the Warriors already amnestied Charlie Bell...they can't amnesty Biedrins anymore.
      ohh well. I guess they wouldn't be the Warriors if they didn't waste their amnesty on a cheap expiring, while their roster was full of bad or long and risky contracts.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        #7 for Granger? I think that's an easy pass. Here are the past #7's. I think Danny is above that average...and I'm not a big Granger fan. I am open to trading a known and younger asset for Granger...but not a chance.

        Bismack Biyombo
        Greg Monroe
        Stephen Curry
        Eric Gordon
        Corey Brewer
        Randy Foye
        Charlie Villanueva
        I'm not necessarily in favor of trading Danny for #7, but I don't think the main reason for abstaining should rest on how the players picked at that position in that past have fared thus far. That has nothing to do with the player you'd pick this year. And how that player pans out has little to do with his draft positioning, or the draft record of the past GM's picking at that position.
        Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 06-01-2012, 11:27 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          Picks 6-8, the past 10 NBA Drafts:

          2002
          #6. Dajuan Wagner
          #7. Nene
          #8. Chris Wilcox

          2003
          #6. Cris Kaman
          #7. Kirk Hinrich
          #8. T.J. Ford

          2004
          #6. Josh Childress
          #7. Luol Deng
          #8. Rafael Araujo

          2005
          #6. Martell Webster
          #7. Charlie Villanueva
          #8. Channing Frye

          2006
          #6. Brandon Roy
          #7. Randy Foye
          #8. Rudy Gay

          2007
          #6. Yi Jianlian
          #7. Corey Brewer
          #8. Brandan Wright

          2008
          #6. Danilo Gallinari
          #7. Eric Gordon
          #8. Joe Alexander

          2009
          #6. Johnny Flynn
          #7. Stephen Curry
          #8. Jordan Hill

          2010
          #6. Ekpe Udoh
          #7. Greg Monroe
          #8. Al-Farouq Aminu

          2011
          #6. Jan Vesley
          #7. Bismack Biyombo
          #8. Brandon Knight

          There's been a few very good players selected in this range over the past decade, and one great player, Brandon Roy, but, for the most part, that's a underwhelming list of names.

          Using that list as a predictor, I'd say there's about a...

          • 07% chance #7 lands a player noticeably better than Danny Granger.
          • 22% chance #7 lands a player roughly the same quality as Danny Granger.
          • 71% chance #7 lands a player significantly worse than Danny Granger.

          Danny for #7 doesn't seem worth it to me, especially knowing that this time team, as currently constructed, made serious progress this past season. If we could get a team to observe Danny's contract, meaning we ended up with both #7 and an additional $10-11M in capspace, then I might consider it.
          Sooooooooooooooooooooo your saying there is a chance , lol but in all honesty people that are taken at those spots are all about potential, most didn't even play 2 or more years of college basketball, so you know there will be a lot of bust and guys that are mediocre, but the thing is picking later in the draft you significantly drop in potential, some guys may have higher floors but typically do not carry the same potential, and this league is all about finding the next big thing so this will happen forever.

          I think this years draft is set up similar to the previous ones, you have guys like Drummond, PJIII, Lamb, Waiters, all similar situation, high potential, but very small chance they will reach it, it all comes down to do you feel like gambling or not.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

            if you judge pick value by other teams' failures, you could also make a good case that Danny is better than the average no.2 pick since ~1995.
            But it's hardly relevant.
            The question is --- what does the draft look like, do you trust your staff (Bird&co) in the draft, what can you do with the extra cap savings.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

              Originally posted by ballism View Post
              The question is --- what does the draft look like, do you trust your staff (Bird&co) in the draft, what can you do with the extra cap savings.
              This. Some guy drafted at the 7 spot years ago that didn't pan out has no effect on this year's draftees.

              This doesn't mean I want to trade Danny for the 7 pick, it just points out the flaw in using past drafts as any indicator of future success.
              Last edited by The Sleeze; 06-01-2012, 12:31 PM.
              I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                Comments in here regarding Granger are exactly why I generalize this board.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                  Originally posted by ballism View Post
                  if you judge pick value by other teams' failures, you could also make a good case that Danny is better than the average no.2 pick since ~1995.
                  But it's hardly relevant.
                  The question is --- what does the draft look like, do you trust your staff (Bird&co) in the draft, do you trust your staff (Bird&co) to decide if this is a good idea or not and what can you do with the extra cap savings.
                  fixed. sorta.

                  everyone loves the draft. and falls in love with potential. my guess is Bird laughs and hangs up the phone for most if not all of the suggested trades.

                  Anyone is available for the right price. But player hate is not a good reason to change a player unless all your fans hate him, ie Jamaal. Pacers are not in need of different players, they are in need of players that make a difference. In other words, not players that may or may not be better. Not a bunch of not quite as good player for Danny, but players that are a lot better. Players that make the Pacers a much better team, not players that make it a different team.

                  Most times making a trade just to make a trade is a bad idea. This is one of those times.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                    i dont wanna trade danny..

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                      now that i think about it....... i wouldn't mind getting Klay Thompson. thompson curry 7th for danny and dc

                      Curry/Hill
                      Thompson/Hill
                      Paul George/Draft Pick
                      David West/Hans
                      Hibbert/Lou or free agent

                      i actually like that ALOT
                      Last edited by PacerPenguins; 06-01-2012, 01:23 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                        I love this board. All these change for the sake of change posts that get thrown around here. Lateral moves are lateral moves, there's no point. So many posters here imagine themselves some sort of NBA GM in waiting, with grand ideas of how to pull off the championship-winning trade that noone else thought of. In reality you just want to see your favorite NBA players from other teams on the Pacers, whether its actually good for the franchise or not. And get rid of whichever scapegoat you are currently blaming for not being able to gloat about your favorite team being NBA champions. Larry Bird is an NBA legend and a paid, professional GM that has taken this team from a sub.-500 team lost in no man's land to the 5th best record in the NBA. You're just some guy on an internet message board. I think I'll pick Bird's plan over all these hair-brained schemes.

                        Like it or not, the current core players are gonna be here for the forseeable future. This is the direction Bird has decided to go, and its working. There's no point in doing a total 180 right now by trading major core players. Might as well get on board with the plan, and quit wishing for the Pacers to be some other team with some other team's players. Its not gonna happen.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                          Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                          Granger brings us 17-18ppg, defense, a shooting threat, a little rebounding, and toughness. If we're trading him we need to bring somebody back that gives us more than that, or it needs to at least be a move that puts us into position to get a better player than him. Anything else is a lateral move -- and we're not in position to make lateral moves, we need to make moves that will put us in championship contention.

                          Somebody else said it in this thread and I will agree. Paul George would be gone before Danny... And I don't see George being gone either.
                          And he's doing that in a TEAM-oriented offense and defense.

                          People keep forgetting what type of team we have. Granger fits what the team needs from the SF spot at $13M and $14M for the next two years. Also, it's nice to know that people are still stuck on wanting to shift Paul George to the 3.

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/2760/danny-granger
                          http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4251/paul-george

                          Up above, this was production that we got from Granger and George in a lockout shorten season, and Vogel to YET have a TRUE offseason. The ONLY players that I'm concern about trying is Hansbrough and Collison.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                            Originally posted by fwpacerfan View Post


                            Well said. Some people always have to have someone to be angry with. This team is heading in the right direction and there is no need to trade a veteran for an unproven pick. I think Larry's philosophy of drafting 3-4 year college players from winning programs is starting to pay dividends. The biggest complaint most of us have had with PG is his maturity. He was a 2 year college guy. I think we can get a decent bench player with our current pick, re-sign our core and add a veteran FA to help us take the next step. I've said it many times - this team reminds me of the early 90's Pacers and that team was built through the draft (often unpopular but wise picks - Steve Alford instead of Reggie?) and being patient with young players.
                            I can't agree more...

                            I'm so glad none of the people here run the team... Way to many people wanting to make lateral moves with some of our core pieces, when at this stage you only make a trade that will immediately improve our team (not wait 2-3 years to see if a draft pick pans out, or take one step back and be in the same place 2-3 years - we are small market, we can't afford to gamble).

                            We had the 5th best record in the NBA... To improve you have to make patient and smart moves (or for example, we would have Nene at the max, and less flexibility). Build on top of what we have... with the new CBA it will be hard for these Superstar teams to put players around their stars. I'm sure Bird and his staff understands the CBA better than anyone here, and how to navigate to build our team.

                            Reading the board lately, you would have thought we missed the playoffs and are in dire need of wholesale changes to the team, while in reality we are just adding 2-3 pieces that fit better and improve our TEAM (FA, draft, trading role players that benefit both teams b/c they fit the systems better, ect) from being legit contenders.
                            "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                              Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                              I love this board. All these change for the sake of change posts that get thrown around here. Lateral moves are lateral moves, there's no point. So many posters here imagine themselves some sort of NBA GM in waiting, with grand ideas of how to pull off the championship-winning trade that noone else thought of. In reality you just want to see your favorite NBA players from other teams on the Pacers, whether its actually good for the franchise or not. And get rid of whichever scapegoat you are currently blaming for not being able to gloat about your favorite team being NBA champions. Larry Bird is an NBA legend and a paid, professional GM that has taken this team from a sub.-500 team lost in no man's land to the 5th best record in the NBA. You're just some guy on an internet message board. I think I'll pick Bird's plan over all these hair-brained schemes.

                              Like it or not, the current core players are gonna be here for the forseeable future. This is the direction Bird has decided to go, and its working. There's no point in doing a total 180 right now by trading major core players. Might as well get on board with the plan, and quit wishing for the Pacers to be some other team with some other team's players. Its not gonna happen.
                              "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                                Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                                Reading the board lately, you would have thought we missed the playoffs and are in dire need of wholesale changes to the team, while in reality we are just adding 2-3 pieces that fit better and improve our TEAM (FA, draft, trading role players that benefit both teams b/c they fit the systems better, ect) from being legit contenders.
                                Thank you....


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X