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

Chad Ford Chat

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

  • #91
    Re: Chad Ford Chat

    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
    Why Chandler Parsons? Wouldn't the whole point in moving Granger be to open the SF position exclusively for PG?
    No, the whole point is we cant afford him same reason Harden was traded by OKC. We aren't going to go deep into the LT if we could trade Granger for a younger and more importantly cheaper player that can be here long term you do it.


    Same reason Memphis had to tlet OJ Mayo walk BTW. I would hate for us to just let a player of Granger caliber walk for a small market franchise that would be a major blunder. Im sure KP will get creative and try to gauge the best course of action but someone will be traded before it's time for George to get re upped.

    EDIT: And to why Parsons I like how he moves the ball and plays the game he would fit really well here. But like I said Morey has a reason he cleared all that cap room I dont think that reason was Danny Granger so I doubt he would bite.
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-09-2013, 08:05 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Chad Ford Chat

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Miami (yes he is better than Haslem)
      Philly
      Cleveland
      Washington
      Boston (if they were willing to move KG back to the 4 if not, then no)
      Charlotte
      Portland (again this is assuming the would prefer to put Aldridge back at the 4)
      Dallas (oh the irony)

      There are a couple of other teams that if he didn’t start he would get big min. off of the bench.

      San Antonio
      Phoenix
      Memphis
      Chicago
      New York
      Milwaukee

      Also I don't disagree about us hurting if Roy went down, but that say's more about Roy's defense than how bad Ian would be.
      Wow Peck you are killing me, here is a break down of the teams you are mentioning(note that I expect Ian fans to break down every single stat to make him look like Hakeem):

      So you have Miami, Miami plays Bosh at center, Bosh is way better than Ian and Haslem even at this point is still better than Ian and yes I know the Pacers won yesterday.

      Philly? Hawes is better than Ian.

      Cleveland? are you forgetting about Varejao? Zeller?

      Washington? how about Nene, Okafor or Seraphin? not sure if you are serious here.

      Boston? maybe if they move KG to power forward but why would they do that?

      Charlotte? Bismack Biyombo, Mullens or Haywood?

      Portland? Hickson or Meyers Leonard?

      Dallas? Kaman is still way better.

      San Antonio? Tiago Spliter is way better than Ian.

      Phoenix? more minutes than a healthy JO? maybe.

      Memphis? playing time over Darrell Arthur and Speights? maybe.

      Chicago? sure if they don't play Gibson at center.

      New York? is he going to get playing time over Camby, Rasheed, Kurt Thomas and Amare at center? I don't think so.

      Milwaukee? over Dalembert and Joel Przybilla? I don't think so but you never know with Milwaukee.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Chad Ford Chat

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        I've talked to other people about this in person but I'll throw this out here right now. Nobody is going to like this but I wonder if Danny isn't plan B if they fail to re-sign David West.

        Think about it for a min. Danny frequently over the years has played the 4 and there are very few 4's who can just over power him.

        A front court of Danny, Paul & Roy is not the worst thing I've ever heard and this would still allow Lance to stay with the starting 5 (which honestly is probably a good thing). You'd lose low post play without a doubt but if we're being honest here we would improve on defense. Rebounding would probably drop a board or two but not as much as you might think.

        I'm not saying this is plan A (signing and keeping West is plan A) but if he demands a really high $$ amount to re-sign then you've already got Danny under contract and you can use that money to tweak other spots on the floor.

        Also under no circumstance do I ever want to see or hear about Ed Davis for Danny Granger. This is the only memory I will ever have of the two.


        Danny can't take the pounding physically playing 4 full time, its a part-time thing to maybe consider, in a series, in a quarter here or there, against a team like Miami. He'd be 14 million to play 40 games probably cuz he'd be out with injuries, constantly, imo. Guys like the guy he would be replacing would punish him. It changes the entire make up of the team back to a jump shooter, undersized, small team. No Thanks!!

        As for trades, I'd rather him just play less minutes and keep him than move him for less than what he's worth to you. Let him fall off after this contract if you want, but don't move him and make you team less. There is NO reason PG, Lance, and Danny can't all thrive on the same team. You have to monitor it, and if Danny gets all JO I'm the Manish, then its a detriment, then you move him. Danny doesn't seem like that, to me.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Chad Ford Chat

          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
          Just throwing a few more on your list that I can think of at the moment...Warriors, Magic and Hornets (big minutes anyways as Lopez is only like 25 minutes per and much less as of late).
          Warriors play Lee at center a lot no way Ian plays over him.

          Magic? Big Baby and Vucevic?

          Hornets? they only have Davis, Lopez and Jason Smith.

          I am sorry but you guys are killing me.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Chad Ford Chat

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Wow Peck you are killing me, here is a break down of the teams you are mentioning(note that I expect Ian fans to break down every single stat to make him look like Hakeem):

            So you have Miami, Miami plays Bosh at center, Bosh is way better than Ian and Haslem even at this point is still better than Ian and yes I know the Pacers won yesterday.

            Philly? Hawes is better than Ian.

            Cleveland? are you forgetting about Varejao? Zeller?

            Washington? how about Nene, Okafor or Seraphin? not sure if you are serious here.

            Boston? maybe if they move KG to power forward but why would they do that?

            Charlotte? Bismack Biyombo, Mullens or Haywood?

            Portland? Hickson or Meyers Leonard?

            Dallas? Kaman is still way better.

            San Antonio? Tiago Spliter is way better than Ian.

            Phoenix? more minutes than a healthy JO? maybe.

            Memphis? playing time over Darrell Arthur and Speights? maybe.

            Chicago? sure if they don't play Gibson at center.

            New York? is he going to get playing time over Camby, Rasheed, Kurt Thomas and Amare at center? I don't think so.

            Milwaukee? over Dalembert and Joel Przybilla? I don't think so but you never know with Milwaukee.
            Joel and Dally aren't their best Cs Larry Sanders and Udoh are much better


            and Ian would play at ton in Portland Hickson is a very good player but not a good C.


            I am really happy we got Ian, Lopez was the only other big I like in last years free agent class, he started to show promise in his final year in PHX. Ian was a great signing at the time and still is IMO on a really good contract for what he can bring to a team hee is a really good backup big which is something not easy to find or cheap to find. The only other guy I liked was Festus we should of considered drafting him he will never be a killer or anything but the 4 years of cheap big man play he will bring GS is really valuable. Like I said, hard to find good cheap bigs.


            and Peck Aldridge almost always plays the 4 Hickson is the one who they play out of position at the 5 and it really hurts them on defense.
            Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-09-2013, 08:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Chad Ford Chat

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              Joel and Dally aren't their best Cs Larry Sanders and Udoh are much better


              and Ian would play at ton in Portland Hickson is a very good player but not a good C.


              I am really happy we got Ian, Lopez was the only other big I like in last years free agent class, he started to show promise in his final year in PHX. Ian was a great signing at the time and still is IMO on a really good contract for what he can bring to a team hee is a really good backup big which is something not easy to find or cheap to find. The only other guy I liked was Festus we should of considered drafting him he will never be a killer or anything but the 4 years of cheap big man play he will bring GS is really valuable. Like I said, hard to find good cheap bigs.
              I'm not that much of a fan of Udoh I rather play Dalembert, JJ Hickson is averaging 12.5 and 11 no way Ian plays over him, regarding Lopez I was always a fan and thought that Phoenix made a mistake in letting him go.
              Last edited by vnzla81; 01-09-2013, 11:46 PM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Chad Ford Chat

                People down here think that Haslem only plays because Wade tells the coach he has to.
                "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Chad Ford Chat

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I'm not that much of a fun of Udoh I rather play Dalembert, JJ Hickson is averaging 12.5 and 11 no way Ian plays over him, regarding Lopez I was always a fan and thought that Phoenix made a mistake in letting him go.
                  J.J is also a butcher of a defender at the 5(main reason they are the worst defensive team). I would certainly start Ian and bring JJ off the bench. JJ's at the 4/5 off the bench would drastically make that team better. Ian would really help that team playing 25-30mpg a tonight I would start him because he would fit better with the starters and JJ would help the worst bench in the NBA with his hard nosed glass work, but either way he is a fringe starter good backup IMO and at 4m that is a steal.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Chad Ford Chat

                    Originally posted by notque View Post
                    If Lebron and Wade can somehow play together, I think George and Granger can work it out....
                    The 'SOMEHOW' that they are able to play together is that Lebron and Wade are 2 of the top 5 players in the league/world. And neither Danny or PG facilitate like Lebron...or like Wade for that matter. Danny and PG are a bit redundant. Far more so than Lebron and DWade.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      nothing, chances of DG leaving/being traded are = -0 chances of Ford being out of work are a lot bigger
                      I agree with this if you are referring to trading Granger before the February 2013 Trade Deadline. But during the Offseason in the summer of 2013? I wouldn't bet on it.

                      Unless Granger can be re-signed for whatever price that the Pacers are willing to sign him at ( as in a reasonable price....which I doubt ), then I don't see the Pacers signing him when he become a UFA in 2014-2015. If there is very little chance that the Pacers will re-sign him at the price that he expects and/or will likely get in the UFA market...then why not try to move him and get something for him?

                      IMHO...if Granger wasn't injured at the beginning of the season...I would bet good money that Granger would have been traded before the February 2013 trade deadline.

                      The bottomline is that the Pacers won't be able to afford both Granger and West...there's even a good chance that they can't keep either.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                        JMHO, but I think Peck is spot-on with the Plan B deal. I don't think there is any chance we move DG this season unless it's a EJ type demands to come home! If I was in the FO, I'd be looking at the off-season and DWest's contract first. If we can't afford to keep West, Danny would be my backup plan. If we resign David, then you decide whether you want to make the best deal possible for Dannky. My worst fear is PG leaving for the Lakers in 2 years. If Kobe leaves, we are going to be in a bind.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Augustine & Green yes. Mahinmi, no.
                          And it's starting to look like you push Augustine toward the 'no' side. Wouldn't you agree Peck?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Warriors play Lee at center a lot no way Ian plays over him.

                            Magic? Big Baby and Vucevic?

                            Hornets? they only have Davis, Lopez and Jason Smith.

                            I am sorry but you guys are killing me.
                            They play PF at the center position not because they are good at it, but because they have no choice do to lack of true centers not only on their team but in the league. If Ian was on any of those 3 teams he would have heavy minutes at center while Davis, Lee and big baby would be at the 4.
                            Last edited by Pacer Fan; 01-09-2013, 08:51 PM.
                            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              Granger for Barnes, Jefferson and a 1st maybe 2 would be something I can get on board with. Makes sense for both teams would suck to take on Jefferson but gotta do it to make money work.

                              EDIT: Although if I am GS not sure I do it Harrison is well on his way to being a Danny Granger level player or better. I would likely just keep Barnes myself.
                              If we could get this I would consider us lucky, I would take it without asking any questions
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                                Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                                Why Chandler Parsons? Wouldn't the whole point in moving Granger be to open the SF position exclusively for PG?
                                Which should make one wonder if the Granger trade is just for the sake of trading Granger.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X