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

  • #76
    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.
    Standing Ovation!

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
      my guess is Bird laughs and hangs up the phone for most if not all of the suggested trades.
      Bird laughs?

      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.
      That's true, but this isn't people wanting to trade just to trade. Rather, people seem to have insanely different perceptions of the players in question.

      I mean, between Danny being a proven winner, a tough guy and a good defender to him basically being a Barbosa level player in decline. I seem to have missed both of those trains.

      And on the other hand, the David Lee = Troy Murphy comparison. It just seems like "hmm, double double guy with bad defense from GSW... hey, that reminds me of Troy Murphy!" comparison.
      IMO, Lee is so much better and more efficient offensively (post moves, passing, shot selection), and plays with so much more effort/hustle.
      If he was a good defender on top of it, he'd be a perennial All Star.

      To me, Danny and David Lee are in the same tier of players.
      Imperfect, in their prime, but right outside of the All Star level.
      If contracts were identical, you'd choose one or another based on your needs. If Lee comes with a high lotto pick (won't happen, but lets say), you'd have to think hard.
      To me, it's an obvious asset upgrade, so it's not "a trade just to trade". It doesn't mean it's a nobrainer --- if you believe it kills your chemistry, identity, playing style, you can still pass. It's not that rare to pass on a talent upgrade because it makes no sense. But neither doing that trade, nor passing on it seems like a nobrainer to me.

      (but it does seem like a nobrainer for GSW to hang up, since they quite obviously lose on talent and open up a huge gap in their rotation)

      Comment


      • #78
        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

        Greg Monroe... in a heartbeat while walking away whistling never looking back!!!

        Comment


        • #79
          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.
          Great a guy that complains about people acting like GM's and telling us that we like it or not "our core is going to be together"....... aren't those the kind of decisions GM's make?
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

            Lateral moves are still worth doing if it means the talent going out was not as good of a fit with the rest of your roster as the talent coming in.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Lateral moves are still worth doing if it means the talent going out was not as good of a fit with the rest of your roster as the talent coming in.
              The George Hill K Leonard trade is a good example, it was a good trade for both teams.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #82
                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.
                I agree with some of this, but the thing is this as a pacer forum where people should throw out whatever idea they have, at the least it sparks conversation, whether they think they are better than bird or not. Every move our management makes or does not make will be criticized for one reason or another and that is fine.

                Also there is nothing wrong with putting out their grand ideas, if you are not invested in what you are saying and don't feel like it will be helpful then what is the use in putting it. I can honestly say that I have no clue at what Birds full plan is, or if it will work, but I will say what I think should happen and what I feel the pacers need to do to get a championship, whether it happens or not does not really matter, but being free to voice my opinion and back it up with reasoning is all I care about.

                If everyone just followed Bird's plan(whether it is the best or not) and did not think of anything else, a big portion of this website would be wiped out. I feel this website allows for learning and teaching and I really appreciate that.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Who is this Danny super hero that you are referring to? lol
                  He is not a superhero or superstar by any means. He is more valuable to this franchise than any other, though. He wants to stay a Pacer for life, is the captain, and our clear best player, although not most consistent. He provides more than the stats to this team. I wouldn't even answer the phone unless they were offering a very clear upgrade to our team, which they won't. Pulling the trigger on a lateral deal only hurts chemistry.
                  Senior at the University of Louisville.
                  Greenfield ---> The Ville

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    The George Hill K Leonard trade is a good example, it was a good trade for both teams.
                    The argument here is that the Pacers could have signed Hill outright if the owner didn't have a stupid rule. EIther way the Pacers could have gotten Hill AND Leonard.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      The argument here is that the Pacers could have signed Hill outright if the owner didn't have a stupid rule. EIther way the Pacers could have gotten Hill AND Leonard.
                      Not likely. Hill was upset at first on leaving San Antonio. I don't think he would have signed with us unless we would have done what Herb doesn't want to do, overpay someone.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                        Golden State has said they won't be keeping all 4 picks this year and are looking for veteran help. Instead of looking at Granger, maybe we could offer Jones for one of their 2cd. round picks. We could use the extra cap space to take a bigger swing in free agency.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                          Originally posted by Really? View Post
                          I agree with some of this, but the thing is this as a pacer forum where people should throw out whatever idea they have, at the least it sparks conversation, whether they think they are better than bird or not. Every move our management makes or does not make will be criticized for one reason or another and that is fine.

                          Also there is nothing wrong with putting out their grand ideas, if you are not invested in what you are saying and don't feel like it will be helpful then what is the use in putting it. I can honestly say that I have no clue at what Birds full plan is, or if it will work, but I will say what I think should happen and what I feel the pacers need to do to get a championship, whether it happens or not does not really matter, but being free to voice my opinion and back it up with reasoning is all I care about.

                          If everyone just followed Bird's plan(whether it is the best or not) and did not think of anything else, a big portion of this website would be wiped out. I feel this website allows for learning and teaching and I really appreciate that.
                          Some people forget here that complainings from blogs like this one and fans outcry helped to get rid of the clown of JOB, either way like you said if nobody disagrees here and everybody agrees that the Pacers are great nobody would care to read anything on this blog, there is a reason why I don't even care to read the other websites.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                            Originally posted by Steagles View Post
                            He is not a superhero or superstar by any means. He is more valuable to this franchise than any other, though. He wants to stay a Pacer for life, is the captain, and our clear best player, although not most consistent. He provides more than the stats to this team. I wouldn't even answer the phone unless they were offering a very clear upgrade to our team, which they won't. Pulling the trigger on a lateral deal only hurts chemistry.
                            He is all you said but, I don't know how easy it is to call something a lateral move, I doubt we will be trading him, and I think chemistry is important and keeping him around for one more year at least would be the way to go.

                            As far as lateral moves, is it lateral for now, is it lateral for the future, are you trading a vet for potential, who will you be able to get with the 7th pick, how will they fit the scheme and the chemistry of the team, I think there is so much to go into saying if a move is lateral or not, and I really think that can not be determined right away, it has to be something that is determined over time, especially when you are dealing with the big P word, POTENTIAL.
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              Not likely. Hill was upset at first on leaving San Antonio. I don't think he would have signed with us unless we would have done what Herb doesn't want to do, overpay someone.
                              He would have signed with us because the Spurs don't need him AND don't have the cash to commit long term to him. Either way he would have ended up with another team and the Pacers would have been a playoff team regardless.

                              The funny part in all this is that we don't set Hills value and neither did/does SA. The market regardless will telll us if Hill will get overpaid and IMO that is 7 million or more.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                                With the #7, we could get Perry Jones, who can play 3-4-5, which would allow him to backup Paul George at the 3, as well as West and Hibbert at the 4/5. I don't know if I would necessarily give Granger away for just the #7, though.
                                witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                                Originally posted by Day-V
                                In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                                Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X