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?

    Lol at the comparison between Danny and JJ.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      Lol at the comparison between Danny and JJ.
      Speaking of the grass is greener...

      JJ is marginally better at best... Same goes for Josh Smith and maybe Monta at his best...
      Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        I am not sure you can. This has nothing to do with Danny but more to do with his contract. I think he has a negative trade value and I doubt you can get a first rounder for him, even one that would be low. If Danny leaves the team, I don't think he will be traded but his contract will be allowed to expire and he will sign a new, much lower contract with another team. You might trade him if you throw in first round draft picks and other players but those player would not be ones you would like to trade. I might be surprised. Bird pulled a miracle moving JO but a big man might be more in demand than Granger..... ...
        This is one of the most brain damaged things I've read in a while.

        I do like how you kept saying "you" and not "we" though. Even you don't consider yourself part of the Pacers fanbase, good to know. Makes so much more sense.
        "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

        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.....
          You have problems.
          "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            Great post and we can add the Pacers as one of the teams in the East where Granger is not the best player. People tend to only look at scoring average and not defense (if they did just that, Granger would be eliminated) and rebounding. This team would come closer to winning without DG than Hibbert.....
            Starting to wonder if you even watch Pacers games.
            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

              Olblu is really starting to go senile... There isn't liking Danny, which is understandable, and then there is being so dense that you're disconnected from reality in regards to him.

              Can't get a first rounder? Negative trade value? I have to assume it is blatant trolling at this point, or such a profound ignorance that it is unbelievable.
              Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                Originally posted by J7F View Post
                Speaking of the grass is greener...

                JJ is marginally better at best... Same goes for Josh Smith and maybe Monta at his best...
                So according to you JJ, Monta and Josh Smith(a triple double machine) are marginally better? this is not a case of "the grass is greener" Danny is not even in the same level as those guys, stop it.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  So according to you JJ, Monta and Josh Smith(a triple double machine) are marginally better? this is not a case of "the grass is greener" Danny is not even in the same level as those guys, stop it.
                  You're right in saying that Smith is a better player. Danny is a slightly better player then JJ or Monta. I sure wouldn't want him traded for either JJ or Monta. I could see someone disagreeing with that, but to say he isn't even on the same level goes beyond over stating your point. Why don't you just say Danny couldn't even make the roster on any other NBA team. I just can't relate to the lack of respect I see Danny getting on here.
                  Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                    You're right in saying that Smith is a better player. Danny is a slightly better player then JJ or Monta. I sure wouldn't want him traded for either JJ or Monta. I could see someone disagreeing with that, but to say he isn't even on the same level goes beyond over stating your point. Why don't you just say Danny couldn't even make the roster on any other NBA team. I just can't relate to the lack of respect I see Danny getting on here.
                    It looks to me like you keep thinking about the "all star Danny", that guy has been gone for few years now, he was on the bottom in efficiently last year, he was lucky he had a good last month or we would have been last, why people don't want to see that? the guy is getting worse every year and that is expected from any player but acting like the guy has not lost an step is letting those blue and gold glasses get on the way.

                    By the way I expect him to decline this year and I'm going to still see people telling me how great he is and that his numbers are down because "he is taking one for the team but if he was with the Bobcats he could average 30ppg".

                    And regarding your comment on Danny been better than Monta and JJ lol, Danny wishes he was as good as those guys.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      So according to you JJ, Monta and Josh Smith(a triple double machine) are marginally better? this is not a case of "the grass is greener" Danny is not even in the same level as those guys, stop it.
                      You say JJ is a better ball handler than DG, but DG is a better ball handler than Josh Smith. You say Josh Smith is a better defender than DG, but DG is a better defender than Monta. You say Monta is a better scorer than DG, but DG has always scored better than JJ (with the exception of last year where JJ scored .3 ppg more)

                      No matter WHO you're comparing DG to, you look at the other players strengths, but not their weaknesses while only focusing on DG's weaknesses. THAT'S the thing that kills me. If you think they're better, that's fine. Different people look for different things in a player. But to say they aren't on the same level, is absolutely ridiculous. We're not talking about superstars here, these are all 2nd-3rd tier players that are the best players on good teams and the 2nd or 3rd best player on a championship level team.


                      P.S you're triple double "machine" has 2 in his entire 8 year career. Not exactly racking them up is he

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                        Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                        Olblu is really starting to go senile
                        :
                        :
                        such a profound ignorance that it is unbelievable.
                        OK, guys, this is exactly what you complain about Ol' Blu about. I would normally delete it as admin or PM, but it's time people realize that origination or retaliation doesn't matter, we need to be treating each other with some respect.

                        OK?
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          It looks to me like you keep thinking about the "all star Danny", that guy has been gone for few years now, he was on the bottom in efficiently last year, he was lucky he had a good last month or we would have been last, why people don't want to see that? the guy is getting worse every year and that is expected from any player but acting like the guy has not lost an step is letting those blue and gold glasses get on the way.

                          By the way I expect him to decline this year and I'm going to still see people telling me how great he is and that his numbers are down because "he is taking one for the team but if he was with the Bobcats he could average 30ppg".

                          And regarding your comment on Danny been better than Monta and JJ lol, Danny wishes he was as good as those guys.
                          Just the "LOL" part of your comment alone shows a lack of respect for Danny as a player and a Pacer.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            You say JJ is a better ball handler than DG, but DG is a better ball handler than Josh Smith. You say Josh Smith is a better defender than DG, but DG is a better defender than Monta. You say Monta is a better scorer than DG, but DG has always scored better than JJ (with the exception of last year where JJ scored .3 ppg more)

                            No matter WHO you're comparing DG to, you look at the other players strengths, but not their weaknesses while only focusing on DG's weaknesses. THAT'S the thing that kills me. If you think they're better, that's fine. Different people look for different things in a player. But to say they aren't on the same level, is absolutely ridiculous. We're not talking about superstars here, these are all 2nd-3rd tier players that are the best players on good teams and the 2nd or 3rd best player on a championship level team.


                            P.S you're triple double "machine" has 2 in his entire 8 year career. Not exactly racking them up is he
                            When I compare players I compare the whole package and what they bring to the table, the "efficiency" and the "whole package" from each one of those 3 players mentioned is better than Danny Granger, only people in PD say that someway somehow Danny is equal to JJ that's it's just homerism, everybody in the NBA knows JJ is a way better player than Danny and is not even close.

                            The same goes to Josh Smith 18.8ppg 9.6rpg 3.9apg 1.7bpg and great defense blows out of the water Danny's numbers, it's a joke that people even consider them on the same planet, is not even close, I think you guys are trolling on this one.

                            Monta is the only comparison that is kind of close but as I have explained for a long time, Monta brings more to the table than Danny, not only that but he makes less money than Danny giving the Pacers flexibility to use that money for something else.

                            Here are the NBA players efficiency numbers by the way:

                            Josh Smith ranks 12 overall, Monta Ellis ranks 49, Joe Johnson 55 and Danny Granger 63, and Danny would have been worse if it was not for that last month miracle run.

                            http://www.nba.com/statistics/player...ager.offset=50
                            Last edited by vnzla81; 08-28-2012, 10:25 AM.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              Just the "LOL" part of your comment alone shows a lack of respect for Danny as a player and a Pacer.
                              "Lack of respect"? who are we talking about? the Pope? the bible? stop it!!
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                When I compare players I compare the whole package and what they bring to the table, the "efficiency" and the "whole package" from each one of those 3 players mentioned is better than Danny Granger, only people in PD say that someway somehow Danny is equal to JJ that's it's just homerism, everybody in the NBA knows JJ is a way better player than Danny and is not even close.

                                The same goes to Josh Smith 18.8ppg 9.6rpg 3.9apg 1.7bpg and great defense blows out of the water Danny's numbers, it's a joke that people even consider them on the same planet, is not even close, I think you guys are trolling on this one.

                                Monta is the only comparison that is kind of close but as I have explained for a long time, Monta brings more to the table than Danny, not only that but he makes less money than Danny giving the Pacers flexibility to use that money for something else.

                                Here are the NBA players efficiency numbers by the way:

                                Josh Smith ranks 12 overall, Monta Ellis ranks 49, Joe Johnson 55 and Danny Granger 63, and Danny would have been worse if it was not for that last month miracle run.

                                http://www.nba.com/statistics/player...ager.offset=50
                                In what way is it homerism though? What has JJ ever done in his career that Danny hasn't? Danny has averaged more points for most of their seasons. Yes you use efficiency as a way to grade a player, but that's far from the only way to grade a player. Maybe JJ can be a little more efficient because he's playing with Josh Smith, who according to you, is one of the best players in the league. If JJ is constantly playing 2nd string to Josh Smith, no wonder he's able to be so efficient. DG has been the best player on the Pacers for a long long time. Most players that aren't superstar level players aren't going to be extremely efficient while being the number one option on a team with lesser players.

                                Josh Smith is very good, and he is undeniably better than Danny. BUT, he's not Lebron, Kobe, nor any other superstar caliber player. He, for all of his talent, has only been to the 2nd round of the playoffs, just like Danny. So the gap isn't NEARLY as large as you like to make it seem.

                                If you want to compare players and everything they bring to the table, then there is just no way you can say JJ is light years ahead of Danny.

                                In games head 2 head, their numbers are virtually the same (outside of wins because the Hawks owned the pacers a lot of times)
                                http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=johnsjo02

                                In their careers, Danny has put up better numbers, while Joe has played on better teams.

                                Danny: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...per_game::none

                                Joe: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsjo02.html#per_game::none

                                Also if you want to use efficiency rating: Roy Hibbert, is better than all of these guys cept Josh Smith . So I don't think the efficiency rating is the BEST judge of talent.
                                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 08-28-2012, 10:49 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X