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

Pacers looking to trade Danny?

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

  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

    [QUOTE=CJ Jones;1496259]

    Okay i'll give you that, but you can't just dismiss the fact that Joe's twice the playmaker and ten times the ball handler.
    Yet with those skills he can't score better or more efficiently?

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      Insults are not wanted nor are they welcome here on the Pacers Digest
      But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

        This has come up each of the last 3 seasons.

        It would not surprise me to see him traded and it would not surprise me to see him not traded. There are sensible arguments both ways. At this point I am going to assume that the team is what we see right now. A couple of additions will be made eventually. But the core of the team is what we have on hand at the present. The real challenge to me is not who are they going to add to the team in the future but how much improvement are they going to see from what they have now.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
          But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....
          Yeh, Blu takes a lot of **** for being a troll (which he tends to be), but don't unnecessarily censor him. I've said a lot of **** and gotten away with it for the most part, being majorly censored only 2-4 times.

          Also, you're next post will put you at 1600. Just letting you know.

          I have a longer on-topic response, but I'll post that after this while I develop the internal organs of the post.
          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


          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

            Just read the first post again. Someone's blog? And it only states that people close to the pacer FO are saying this? Yeah, not too credible.

            And this is no slight to Heisneburg for posting it. He seems to have doubts also.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              I generally prefer TS% too. Means that Danny is getting to the line more, which is a good thing.
              It depends on the player. I have a hard time giving high usage players with single digit assist ratios much credit for their freet throw attempts (Gay, Granger). If they're not looking for their teammates it just looks like a selfish stat to me.

              Yet with those skills he can't score better or more efficiently?
              I didn't make my point clear apparently. Mattie believes Danny's a better offensive player because he scores slightly more efficient. I'm saying it's not all about scoring. Joe's ability to handle the ball and make plays makes his teammates better. It's not fair to dismiss Joes strengths and Danny's weakness when comparing the two.
              Last edited by CJ Jones; 08-26-2012, 06:06 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                Who in the NBA has a need for a veteran SF who can contribute 18-24 points per game (besides, I guess, any team)? Or rather, who would be willing to take Granger? Would we have to package him with Hansbrough?

                Hornets: Their small forward lineup looks pretty WAY young. Al-Farouq Aminu, Darius Miller, Lance Thomas (?), and Anthony Davis, if he dropped to the 3. Yes, of course, Eric Gordon could be sent in return, but I don't really see it happening. However, a lineup of Vasquez/Rivers/Granger/Davis/Lopez could work out, just like a lineup of Hill/Gordon/George/West/Hibbert doesn't look too bad either. Hornets would undoubtedly have interest, though, due to their lack of depth at SF.

                Bobcats: Kidd-Gilchrist is expected to be Charlotte's savior at small forward. But with the likes of Matt Carroll, Gerald Henderson, Jamario Moon, and Reggie Williams behind/in front of him, they could use a veteran small forward to help control the rookies a little bit. I don't really think there's anyone on the Bobcats who I could realistically see working out for the Pacers. But as far as teams who have a need at small forward, the Bobcats are up there.

                Cavaliers: Omri Casspi, Alonzo Gee, Luke Walton, Kelenna Azubuike, and CJ Miles can all play the 3 for Cleveland. But none of those names really stand out as a "starting forward". This is another case where the Cavs may not have anyone worth picking up in exchange for our long-term leader. But they're going to continue to not go any farther if their future rests on the shoulders of Kyrie Irving, Dion Waiters, Tristan Thompson, Anderson Varejao, Tyler Zeller, and a collection of lower-tier players. Luke Walton, Varejao, and Azubuike are the oldest players on the team at 32, 29, and 28, respectively. The average age of the rest of the team is mid-20's, but that does not directly translate into "experience".

                I think you get where I'm going here. There are many teams leftover who could use a veteran small forward; instead of the empty hole or vast youth they have there instead. Remember that, just because one team (like the Bobcats) has nothing we would want in return, doesn't mean we can't get something else from a third team. The 76ers got Bynum from LA by giving Iguodala to Denver. Not all is lost, nor hopeless, nor impossible. If someone's going to get a decent return for Granger, I think Kevin Pritchard can do so.
                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


                • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  I didn't make my point clear apparently. Mattie believes Danny's a better offensive player because he scores slightly more efficient. I'm saying it's not all about scoring. Joe's ability to handle the ball and make plays makes his teammates better. It's not fair to dismiss Joes strengths and Danny's weakness when comparing the two.
                  I think the fact that JJ is a guard while Danny is a SF who can play stretch 4 should be considered too. Outside of Lebron and MAYBE KD, most natural forwards aren't very strong ball handlers or playmakers.

                  Most guards can handle and pass, while most forwards can post and rebound. Danny is a very very average rebounder but he's above average in the post, and is better on the inside; which is why he gets to the line more.. Their strengths and weaknesses are different but it also has to do with what positions they mostly play.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    But it is perfectly OK for people to call me a troll, dense or hard headed. What I said here was not an insult and it was very mild compared to the names I get called every day. If you don't apply this standard to everyone, you are merely being a tool for the masses who don't like it when people disagree with them. So lets see you do this same thing to everyone who posts here or, you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....
                    This is the first post that I have ever directed at you. Whatever it was you had to say towards me, I didn't see it, nor do I care. Your response was obviously ill mannered, and unwarranted considering that once again..I have not directed one single post at you. In the future, please refrain from making false accusations as I have never called you a troll, or even replied to one of your posts.
                    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      I think the fact that JJ is a guard while Danny is a SF who can play stretch 4 should be considered too. Outside of Lebron and MAYBE KD, most natural forwards aren't very strong ball handlers or playmakers.

                      Most guards can handle and pass, while most forwards can post and rebound. Danny is a very very average rebounder but he's above average in the post, and is better on the inside; which is why he gets to the line more.. Their strengths and weaknesses are different but it also has to do with what positions they mostly play.
                      IMO Danny is not good at getting to the line at all. He really needs to work on that I think.
                      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                        Originally posted by HC View Post
                        IMO Danny is not good at getting to the line at all. He really needs to work on that I think.
                        He averaged 5 FTA a game last yr, which was the lowest number in the last 4 years. Before last season he had averaged 6, 7,7 and 5. Not elite numbers but much better than JJ, which is who I was comparing him to when I made the statement.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                          Originally posted by HC View Post
                          IMO Danny is not good at getting to the line at all. He really needs to work on that I think.
                          Yes, I agree, but I think it's a hopeless cause to expect him to get much better in that area. The Danny you see today is a player who needs to catch and shoot and only occasionally drive. Danny is a great shooter. He's just a LOT better at shooting than converting after fouls because he cannot handle the ball...and that's not going to improve any more than it has already. ...and it has...but he has hit the ceiling.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            He averaged 5 FTA a game last yr, which was the lowest number in the last 4 years. Before last season he had averaged 6, 7,7 and 5. Not elite numbers but much better than JJ, which is who I was comparing him to when I made the statement.
                            He might not look like a guy who gets to the line a lot, but the numbers say that he does it fairly well. To put Granger's numbers in perspective, last year's 4.7 FTA/g was tied with the likes of Monta Ellis and Tony Parker. His two 6.9 FTA/g seasons were very nice, finishing 13th and 14th in the league in those years. Not elite as Ace says but probably as close as you can get without being an athletic freak. Particularly impressive since he's more of a shooter than a slasher. Again, to put the numbers in perspective, Monta Ellis' best career FTA/g is 6.1, Joe Johnson's is 5.5, Rudy Gay's is 5.0. There's nothing wrong with Danny's ability to draw fouls, we just need him to get back his old form.
                            Last edited by wintermute; 08-26-2012, 10:32 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              I think the fact that JJ is a guard while Danny is a SF who can play stretch 4 should be considered too. Outside of Lebron and MAYBE KD, most natural forwards aren't very strong ball handlers or playmakers.
                              I don't think this should this be considered when comparing their overall offensive game. Does it really matter what wing position they play offensively? The skills they bring to the table is all that matters to me.

                              Most guards can handle and pass, while most forwards can post and rebound. Danny is a very very average rebounder but he's above average in the post, and is better on the inside; which is why he gets to the line more.. Their strengths and weaknesses are different but it also has to do with what positions they mostly play.
                              I'd almost be willing to bet Joe's the better post player. Danny last year was 140th out of 150 qualified players in 2 pt shooting percentage. At this point Danny's a 2 dimensional offensive player... 3 pt shooter and foul drawer (if you consider that a dimension). Joe's a much more versatile player. He can do more things offensively, it's as simple as that, therefore he's the better all around offensive player IMO. I don't buy Danny's slightly more efficient scoring trumps Joe's superiority in the other tangible and intangible offensive categories.

                              We're getting way off topic from my original post, though. The moral of the story is it's lame for me to say my stats are better than yours because when it comes to stats there are no absolutes (especially advanced stats). They can be read differently by different people. Some put more stock in certain stats than others, and that's perfectly fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.
                              Last edited by CJ Jones; 08-27-2012, 01:15 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                                I don't think this should this be considered when comparing their overall offensive game. Does it really matter what wing position they play offensively? The skills they bring to the table is all that matters to me.



                                I'd almost be willing to bet Joe's the better post player. Danny last year was 140th out of 150 qualified players in 2 pt shooting percentage. At this point Danny's a 2 dimensional offensive player... 3 pt shooter and foul drawer (if you consider that a dimension). Joe's a much more versatile player. He can do more things offensively, it's as simple as that, therefore he's the better all around offensive player. I don't buy Danny's slightly more efficient scoring trumps Joe's superiority in the other tangible and intangible offensive categories.

                                We're getting way off topic from my original post, though. The moral of the story is it's lame for me to say my stats are better than yours because when it comes to stats there are no absolutes (especially advanced stats). They can be read differently by different people. Some put more stock in certain stats than others, and that's perfectly fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.
                                JJ is going into the post against guards, while DG is posting forwards. Most 2-guards in the league now are between 6'3 and 6'6. JJ is 6'8 like 230 lol. But we could argue for days about these two I'm sure.

                                I agree with you 100%, different people have different opinions on ways to grade a player. I'm glad you can at least see that for the most part, DG and JJ are about the same level of player, just with different strengths and weaknesses. Most feel the grass is greener, and I guess I often feel the need to defend DG because he;s been a good soilder through most of his prime years.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X