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

Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

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

  • #76
    Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    The highlighted part tells me a lot, you believe that "he got hot", by reading your previous posts it looks to me like you don't believe what you are seeing or you don't want to believe it because you still want your guy Danny to be "numero uno", is OK if you and others feel that way.
    Lol you forgot to read this part I assume
    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson
    But that doesn't mean he can't be Paul's "robin"--a role many (posters and media types alike) have always said Danny was more suited to play.
    But You're wrong. I've never once disputed Paul is now the "star" of the team. It's his team, and we'll only go as far as he leads us.

    I said Paul got hot, because he was having a very inconsistent start to the season and we were being carried by D.West. After the goose egg in GS, everything changed for PG and the Pacers. He "got hot" and has been playing balls to the walls ever since. No complaints here. He is easily more talented and more diverse than Danny ever could be. Doesn't make Danny chopped liver nor does it make him any less important.

    Prior to this home stand, everyone was clamoring for Danny to come back and Lance was seemingly hitting a wall. Now that he's playing great right now, we want to delegate Danny to the bench, and I don't think it's that simple. That's my beef

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Nobody here is calling Danny number one! We are talking about co-existence.
      Who would you start at SF?

      I don't want to hear about cross matching on defense, or how how the offense wouldn't change (which it absolutely would). All I want to knows who starts at the 3 between George and granger, according to you.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        You're making too much of a big deal about this 2-3 position. If this were college it would matter. Why aren't you raising a stink about a natural shooting guard starting as our 1?
        I'm not making a big deal about the positions the thing is that if I have a player that is playing close to a superstar level at one position why do I want to change that? I'm also worry about removing Lance from the starting unit, I want him to develop, he has the potential to be special why change that?

        And another thing nobody else has mention is how many easy shots or layups are West and Paul George getting by playing with Lance? you can't underestimate Lance impact.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

          Originally posted by cgg View Post
          Didn't we just read last night that PG will defend the best opposing wing, and DG will offensively become the 2?
          ???
          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
            After scoring in single digits for 7 games straight with two of those being great big giant donuts. 0. 4 of those games were losses, sir.

            He is still raw. He can do his "next best thing behind Basketball *****" on the bench.

            And you're kidding, right? Roy has had no open looks in the lane all season. Why? There is no spacing being brought by our wings. West can stay in the high post because he makes those shots at a very high percentage. Roy needs an open lane to become as efficient as he did last year. (Which we had a higher scoring percentage...) smh.
            Sorry but this looks like Lance bashing to me, and I will not stand for it. Let me guess, you never liked Stephenson? Thought he was all hype? Boasted to everyone on PD how he was never going to pan out? Now that he has proven that not only can he play, but play very well, you are secretly rooting against him? You essentially want him to fail just so you can say "i told you so" to us PD nerds. Did I miss anything here?
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by cgg View Post
              ???
              What that implies is that every team only has one wing capable of doing damage.

              Using miami or NY as an example, you'd be asking Granger to defend smaller, faster, explosive players, guys Lance has shown to be at least adept at defending thus far.

              The matchups work in Indianas favor with George on lebron and lance on wade. Granger on wade, I think would be a bigger problem, which would force vogel to go granger on lebron and George on wade...and then you have last year's series.
              Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 06:12 PM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Who would you start at SF?

                I don't want to hear about cross matching on defense, or how how the offense wouldn't change (which it absolutely would). All I want to knows who starts at the 3 between George and granger, according to you.
                Granger.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Lol you forgot to read this part I assume

                  But You're wrong. I've never once disputed Paul is now the "star" of the team. It's his team, and we'll only go as far as he leads us.

                  I said Paul got hot, because he was having a very inconsistent start to the season and we were being carried by D.West. After the goose egg in GS, everything changed for PG and the Pacers. He "got hot" and has been playing balls to the walls ever since. No complaints here. He is easily more talented and more diverse than Danny ever could be. Doesn't make Danny chopped liver nor does it make him any less important.

                  Prior to this home stand, everyone was clamoring for Danny to come back and Lance was seemingly hitting a wall. Now that he's playing great right now, we want to delegate Danny to the bench, and I don't think it's that simple. That's my beef
                  Your beef is that you think that if the Pacers move Danny to the bench they are pretty much telling him that he is not good enough, I don't see it that way, I mean if Manu Ginobili was willing to come off the bench why Danny can't do the same?

                  Even Amare a player that many believe is a diva is coming off the bench without a problem, he is actually embracing it and because of that his team is better.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                    Granger.
                    Then, by definition, granger is "number one," to you. George is the one playing out of position to accommodate Danny, in your scenario, so Danny can play his natural position.

                    You can argue that you still think George is the team's best player, but generally you don't ask your undisputed best player to play out of position to accommodate a lesser player.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 06:16 PM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      Sorry but this looks like Lance bashing to me, and I will not stand for it. Let me guess, you never liked Stephenson? Thought he was all hype? Boasted to everyone on PD how he was never going to pan out? Now that he has proven that not only can he play, but play very well, you are secretly rooting against him? You essentially want him to fail just so you can say "i told you so" to us PD nerds. Did I miss anything here?
                      I don't wish anyone on this team failure. I'm sorry but I left my dueling glove in the camper so you'll probably have to stand for it a while longer.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Then, by definition, granger is "number one," to you. George is the one playing out of position to accommodate Danny, in your scenario, so Danny can play his natural position.
                        Exactly.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          Then, by definition, granger is "number one," to you. George is the one playing out of position to accommodate Danny, in your scenario, so Danny can play his natural position.
                          On paper, you have a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward and center. When the lineups come out, you have to put a name somewhere. Those two positions mean squat to me unless we are talking college ball and we're not. They are going to get assigned a specific player on defense and Vogel will draw up an offensive scheme that will suit both of their talents. To tell me that I am picking Danny over Paul RIGHT NOW, at 5:20 PM on February 6th, 2013 is asinine.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            On paper, you have a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward and center. When the lineups come out, you have to put a name somewhere. Those two positions mean squat to me unless we are talking college ball and we're not. They are going to get assigned a specific player on defense and Vogel will draw up an offensive scheme that will suit both of their talents. To tell me that I am picking Danny over Paul RIGHT NOW, at 5:20 PM on February 6th, 2013 is asinine.
                            ...except, that's precisely what you did when you said you'd start Danny at SF. The are both naturals at the same position, so by rule one of them is going to have to take a back seat to the other if there both going to start.

                            You could have said you'd start granger at SG, but you didn't.

                            If you're uncomfortable with the "shooting guard" designation, I can replace it for you with "wacky smacky dribbling guy," but that isn't going to change the fact there are serious defensive concerns with him guarding the other "wacky smacky dribbling guys" in the east that you will see in the postseason, such as jr smith. Dwyane wade, and rip Hamilton.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013, 06:23 PM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              His spot was the starting SF. It isn't his spot anymore. And yes, it absolutely matters, especially if Danny has lost a step defensively.

                              Using him as a 6th man is probably in the best interest of the team, but I doubt granger would be happy with it.
                              I agree completely we are so much better when Lance is on the floor then when he isn't. The offense rating is a pretty dramatic splits. The defense is about the same also.

                              I really want Granger off the bench I love our starting 5 as a unit they need to play together as much as possible. Lance may be the 3rd 4th or 5th option in the unit but he is the glue that makes it work IMO. Like David West has said when Lance plays well the Pacers play well.


                              I also read an article on Cornrows that makes it sound like that in the near future Lance will be moving to the primary ball handler.

                              Walsh
                              Donnie Walsh on Lance Stephenson:

                              Didn't play a whole lot in his first two years but then this year, in part because of Danny, but he was going to play anyway because we just needed to commit to that. He's gotten time and basically, fit his talent into an NBA game. He's been playing at the two guard position so he's been learning how to come off of screens and he's learning how to play without the ball which will help him for the day when he gets back to playing with the ball.

                              He's done very well and actually in the last couple of games (DEN DET) he's done extremely well. In transition, he's like a mini-LeBron in a sense that he really gets the ball down the court quickly and comes at you with a big body, so we get a lot of good out of that. He sees the floor and he's a willing passer so I think he'll continue to get better at that. His shooting has been good as far as, he'll hit the three he can take it to the goal. There are games he goes in and helps us on the boards and defensively he's learning every day but he has a defensive mindset and I think also has the skill set to be an awfully good defender some day. But he's only 22 years old.
                              http://www.indycornrows.com/2013/2/5...-brings-to-the


                              EDIT:

                              http://dimemag.com/2013/01/indianas-...secret-weapon/

                              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...acers-success/



                              Two great articles how how good we play with Lance. Granger will be a serious help to what we need I just want our starting 5 to still play 25mpg together when he comes back.
                              Last edited by pacer4ever; 02-06-2013, 06:29 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                ...except, that's precisely what you did when you said you'd start Danny at SF. The are both naturals at the same position, so by rule one of them is going to have to take a back seat to the other if there both going to start.

                                You could have said you'd start granger at SG, but you didn't.
                                Because you can put Paul at that "shooting guard" position. It doesn't matter. It will not affect one damn thing!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X