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

Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

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

  • #16
    Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    I can't really think of a precedent for it, but I liken it a little bit to that of David Robinson getting hurt-- granted Duncan was able to come in and be a force right from the get-go, but it was an injury that allowed a team to go that next step.

    If Granger comes back full force next year and we have the same core guys after yet another summer of improvement... I think we could be really dangerous... pre-brawl vibes.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

      Yes. I said that Danny's injury was a blessing in disguise months ago. I don't think there is anyway that Lance gets the playing time or opportunity he has to play this year without Danny.

      Lance has always had a very short rope prior to this season. If he made a bad decision on offense or made a mistake on defense, he'd get the hook. Having Granger out and Gerald Green struggling forced Vogel to play Lance and start to trust him.

      I expected Paul to improve to a 14-15 point player but with Danny out, he's been forced to play more minutes and have the ball in his hands more than he would if things had went as planned.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

        The Pacers are 46-27. That is good, but I have no question in my mind we are even better with a healthy Danny Granger. And we don't begin the year 4-7 if not for the Granglerless confusion.

        We are not a particularly good offensive team, and subtracting your perennial leading scorer doesn't help. The bottom line is that Granger > Stephenson, and it's not even really close.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

          I think the way that Danny's absence helped the team is in the sense that Lance and Paul had to grow up and take on more responsibility. If Danny had been on the team, their record might be better but Lance and Paul wouldn't be at the level they are now. They would probably still defer to Danny and West on offense.

          We don't know for sure but I'm trying to look at the positive of Danny's injury.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

            I still don't understand how some of you really think that having 13 millions in dead weight helps the team in any form, yes Lance and Paul George have been able to develop into good players but lets not downplay the 13 million dollars hit that could have been spend in something else that could have make the team a contender.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              I still don't understand how some of you really think that having 13 millions in dead weight helps the team in any form, yes Lance and Paul George have been able to develop into good players but lets not downplay the 13 million dollars hit that could have been spend in something else that could have make the team a contender.

              Someone on the Bulls realgm forum proposed Rip,Teague, Hinrich and a Draft pick for Granger. Too bad they are not the GM of the Bulls.
              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I still don't understand how some of you really think that having 13 millions in dead weight helps the team in any form, yes Lance and Paul George have been able to develop into good players but lets not downplay the 13 million dollars hit that could have been spend in something else that could have make the team a contender.
                Agreed.

                Also, I'm not so sure about this argument that younger players definitely develop better with someone like Granger absent. The more weapons that are on a team, the more difficult you become to defend. Everyone benefits from that. A player like PG may get fewer opportunities with someone like Granger on the floor, but he probably gets better quality opportunities. This is evident in stats... Paul George's shot attempts are way up this year, but his FG% is down. He's forced things a bit more than he did last year, and I'm not sure that's great for development.

                I never thought of Danny Granger as a "superstar" or a top 10 player in the NBA. But he is what he is... a 20 PPG type of guy that opposing teams had to account for.
                Last edited by Randolph_HorseLips; 03-29-2013, 03:43 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I still don't understand how some of you really think that having 13 millions in dead weight helps the team in any form, yes Lance and Paul George have been able to develop into good players but lets not downplay the 13 million dollars hit that could have been spend in something else that could have make the team a contender.
                  Can you elaborate on any rumored deals that the Pacers were included in that involved Granger this last trade deadline?
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Can you elaborate on any rumored deals that the Pacers were included in that involved Granger this last trade deadline?
                    There was a rumor about Utah giving up Milsap and other piece for him, anything you could have got for him was/is gravy at that point.

                    All the rumors over the years have been shut down by the Pacers declaring Danny pretty much untouchable, that was and would always be ridiculous.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                      If Granger comes back better than ever, then sure it helps the franhise long term. if he never can play again obviously not. if he comes back, but is never quite the same player as he was, then no.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                        Originally posted by Randolph_HorseLips View Post
                        Agreed.

                        Also, I'm not so sure about this argument that younger players definitely develop better with someone like Granger absent. The more weapons that are on a team, the more difficult you become to defend. Everyone benefits from that. A player like PG may get fewer opportunities with someone like Granger on the floor, but he probably gets better quality opportunities. This is evident in stats... Paul George's shot attempts are way up this year, but his FG% is down. He's forced things a bit more than he did last year, and I'm not sure that's great for development.

                        I never thought of Danny Granger as a "superstar" or a top 10 player in the NBA. But he is what he is... a 20 PPG type of guy that you have to account for.
                        I for one am in the boat that feels that Lance would have broken out regardless of being a starter or not. Many forget the Bobcats game early in the season (2nd game?) when he came off the bench and showcased his ability in much the same way he has as a starter.

                        As for Paul George, if he is indeed a star in this league, he would have been able to be a star WITH Granger in the lineup as well.

                        Losing a guy who is an annual 18-20ppg scorer from your line up who is also taking up 13+ million dollars in cap-space is NEVER a good thing IMO

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          If Granger comes back better than ever, then sure it helps the franhise long term. if he never can play again obviously not. if he comes back, but is never quite the same player as he was, then no.
                          So the answer is no then.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            There was a rumor about Utah giving up Milsap and other piece for him, anything you could have got for him was/is gravy at that point.

                            All the rumors over the years have been shut down by the Pacers declaring Danny pretty much untouchable, that was and would always be ridiculous.
                            I thought the rumor was that it was Milsap+Burks for Granger+Lance.

                            Assuming that the Pacers have every intention of re-signing Milsap ( which I assume that they would )...I'd have no problem giving up Granger for Milsap....but include Lance while getting back only Alec Burks?

                            Pass if it costs us Lance while replacing him with Burks.

                            I am trying to understand your position on this. I know that you've been calling for Granger's trade due to your "now validated" concerns and that getting "something" is better than nothing at this point ( cuz 20/20 hindsight is always clear )...but are you implying that the Pacers didn't try to move him at all cuz you think that he's "untouchable"?
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                              All this talk of trading Granger this year assumes that there was another team who was serious about taking on a guy with a bad knee. Seems like a lot to assume.

                              We may want to make a trade, but it takes two to tango. We should stop looking at the Pacers' desire (or lack thereof) to trade Granger, but instead look at who out there was willing to trade for him. Was there really anyone? Really?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

                                Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                                All this talk of trading Granger this year assumes that there was another team who was serious about taking on a guy with a bad knee. Seems like a lot to assume.

                                We may want to make a trade, but it takes two to tango. We should stop looking at the Pacers' desire (or lack thereof) to trade Granger, but instead look at who out there was willing to trade for him. Was there really anyone? Really?
                                Just because Granger wasn't traded doesn't mean that the Pacers FO didn't try to move him.

                                It's not as much "it takes two to tango", it's more that I think that the Pacers were only a willing partner to dance with..when it came to parting ways with Granger....the problem is that I suspect that the Pacers didn't find a dance partner that they were hoping to find. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers made it known that Granger was available and there were some Teams that were willing to make an offer for Granger.

                                The problem is that I suspect that those Teams just didn't make the Pacers an offer that made sense ( maybe taking on too much long-term salary? ) or wasn't getting back assets that fit their needs.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X