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

Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

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

  • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

    Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
    We could take back 75%.
    We could also take back 0% if we trade him to a team under the cap or that has a large trade exception.

    Great article. Too bad we don't get that kind of insight into the team from the local newspaper writers.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      The reason to trade Danny Granger this summer, is that may be the only possible way to retain David West, and stay under the LT line.

      If you can keep West without trading him, you do that. I'm just not certain that it isn't going to take a huge deal to keep West, which I think is more important than keeping Granger.
      They'll be able to keep West and not go over the luxury tax next year. Right now the Pacers are at 49.28 million for 9 players. So even if West gets 12-13 million, that still leaves 7-8 million left for 3 players. 2 of those players will likely be their draft picks at 2 million total, so they'll have money to sign either a backup PF or backup PG to fill out the roster, whichever one they don't get in the draft.

      The real problem is after next year when Granger/George/Lance all hit free agency. The poster you quoted suggests just letting Granger walk at that point instead of trading him this summer.

      I agree completely with that poster that if the Pacers trade Danny they aren't taking on any kind of significant long-term money in the process. That would be pointless. I think most of the people talking about trading him this summer are more referring to expiring+young player or expiring+picks. That would solve the money issue for future years, and also help keep the Pacers talent pipeline going.

      I do think though that with Danny's injury, the Pacers might just hold onto him and risk losing him for nothing, hoping they can get him for a bargain after his contract expires.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

        Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
        Even if West made $16m next year (I'd be beyond stunned, but hey it's possible), we'd still be (with Danny) at least a few million under the LT and only needing to replace Augustin and Sam Young in our rotation. That's workable. I think they'll both be here next season.
        What about Hansbrough? His spot in the rotation will also need to be replaced, unless you're planning on him staying. If West gets $16 million, we'd be at $65.9 million. Hansbrough's QO is $4.2 million, so that puts us at $70.1 million. That puts us firmly in LT territory.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
          Even if West made $16m next year (I'd be beyond stunned, but hey it's possible), we'd still be (with Danny) at least a few million under the LT and only needing to replace Augustin and Sam Young in our rotation. That's workable. I think they'll both be here next season.
          Tyler would also have to be replaced in that scenario. That would be basically 66 million for 10 players, so essentially the Pacers would be filling those roles with draft picks and minimum salary players (1st round pick, 2nd round pick, and bringing Young back at the minimum would put the Pacers somewhere around 68.5-69 million for 13 players). That's pretty tight but doable. But West having that large of a contract would crush the Pacers in future seasons, so I can't see the Pacers going up that high if bidding somehow got that crazy (which I doubt).

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

            Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
            The money situation is pretty tough. Now, granted, the LT could very well be a bit higher in 2 years, but probably not by a lot.

            Let's say it remains at what ShamSports currently reports it as, ~$70.3m.

            I'll try to be somewhere in between realistic and rosey with my salary projections:

            George Hill ($8m) / BackupPG
            Paul George (~$14m) / Lance Stephenson (~$5m aka MLE range) / Orlando Johnson (~$0.9m)
            Danny Granger (~$8m) / Gerald Green ($3.5m)
            David West (~$12m) / Miles Plumlee ($1.2m)
            Roy Hibbert (~$14.9m) / Ian Mahinmi ($4m)

            That adds up to $71.5, over the tax.

            Odds are we WILL NOT be willing to be a tax payer. There's a small chance; Simon allowed it in the past 10 years, but I wouldn't bet on it, either.

            And that doesn't account for 2013 draft picks, 2014 draft picks, or even if we give those all away to save money you still need to sign some minimum salary guys to keep the roster at the minimum size of 13 players. (Though, someone remind me, do minimum salary guys still count against the cap, or not? Or am I thinking that the league or someone other than the team that is, pays for their salary but it still goes on the cap?)

            So, if you think we'll give away all of our draft picks the next two years, AND Danny will take less than $8m per AND David will take less than $12m per AND Lance will take a minimum of $5m per... you might just get by.
            I could see us packaging a late 1st and Green in order to dump salary, which makes up some ground here. There is also the possibility we keep Danny and let Lance walk. I think there are ways to keep the core together, it may come down to choosing between Danny and Lance.
            "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

            - ilive4sports

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

              Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
              I can imagine it, but consider what usually happens, and then really dwell on the fact that it will be the AGENTS of these players, not the players themselves, working on the new deals, and that fantasy fades away pretty quick.
              Persuasive as they may be the Agents still work for the players. It is ultimately the players decision as to whether they want to maximize market value or give up some $$$ in order to stay in a situation that is right for them.

              The fantasy is assuming most players value the opportunity for a championship or loyalty to an organization over maximizing monetary compensation. Truth is most do not and as much as we as fans wished they did none of them need to apologize for making that choice.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                Man I can't believe it. These guys are reminding me of that group of thugs the Spurs. Seriously though, Danny's attitude reminds me of Ginibili's.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                  Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                  I could see us packaging a late 1st and Green in order to dump salary, which makes up some ground here. There is also the possibility we keep Danny and let Lance walk. I think there are ways to keep the core together, it may come down to choosing between Danny and Lance.
                  THIS. If we could somehow trade our first with someone taking on Green's contract, then I think we would be as good as gold with DG, OJ, Lance and Paul.

                  The fact that signing Green to such a long term deal may be the thing that breaks this team apart is nauseating.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                    Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                    Dude relax, take a deep breath...

                    I actually tend to agree that Danny and the team would strongly prefer to NOT part ways. Danny seems like the rare type of player who might turn down more lucrative offers (within reason) in order to stay with the Pacers (this is not unheard of, Dirk did this with the Mavs in order to win a championship).

                    However they way you have been reacting to some of the other posters here is indeed over the top.

                    People HAVE presented facts for their side of the argument (namely salary considerations, which are a real issue). The Pacers are not made of money, and attendance is still lagging behind where we all hoped it would be at this point. Simon has refused to go into the luxury tax for a very long time now. We still have to re-sign DWest and plan for keeping PG. Something might have to give. Let's hope it doesn't, but much crazier things have happened.

                    Finally it's fine for people to disagree, but that doesn't necessarily make one side "irrational." I agree with the other poster that you might not be using that word correctly... Not trying to attack you, just pointing out that you're not doing yourself any favors with how you are presenting your argument... JMHO

                    Ummm....no....ur way off...waaaayyyyyyy....

                    People have made the case for the Pacers going to have payroll issues...which I have been saying for months...thats not the issue...Now they wont really be an issue til after DAnnys contract ends...and when Georges new deal would take effect....so thats not really the sticking point...they have made a case for the payroll issues...but not why DAnny is the odd man out....and why he will not only put out to pasture but done so this offseason...they will attempt to get rid of Roy or Hill or a host of others before they get rid of Danny....Danny is on the same course as Reggie.....and there are many many facts that point to such....and none that point to the fact that DANNY will be the one let go if someone indeed has to go....NONE...amazing how the guy who was our best player and face of the franchise before he got hurt suddenly is the odd man out....lol...like i said..irrational...
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                      Im not crying! I just have something in my eye...
                      If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                      @LetsTalkPacers

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                        If the Pacers had any plans to get rid of Hill or Hibbert, the best time to do it would have likely been last offseason.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                          Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                          We could also take back 0% if we trade him to a team under the cap or that has a large trade exception.

                          Great article. Too bad we don't get that kind of insight into the team from the local newspaper writers.
                          True, but has any team ever absorbed such a large deal withing sending money back? He'll be worth around $14m next year.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                            Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                            Ummm....no....ur way off...waaaayyyyyyy....

                            and none that point to the fact that DANNY will be the one let go if someone indeed has to go....NONE...
                            So... salary numbers aren't facts? Remind me not to pick you when I'm putting together my next debate team.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                              Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                              True, but has any team ever absorbed such a large deal withing sending money back? He'll be worth around $14m next year.
                              What did Peja get from New Orleans in our sign and trade? I don't really remember.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger and Paul George have unique bond that makes Pacers real threat in East (Article about Granger/George)

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                What about Hansbrough? His spot in the rotation will also need to be replaced, unless you're planning on him staying. If West gets $16 million, we'd be at $65.9 million. Hansbrough's QO is $4.2 million, so that puts us at $70.1 million. That puts us firmly in LT territory.
                                You can draft his replacement, you can re-sign Pendergraph, or you can play Miles and Ian together if you believe that's workable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X