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

CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

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

  • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Some of this is insane.

    First off, it isn't like we trade Danny and this year's $14M goes away like a leaf in the wind. We aren't going to find an under-the-cap team to trade for Danny for picks and/or a player making significantly less. Given that, is there a team or combination of teams who want to take on a $14M expiring (because at worst that is what Danny is) and yet can provide us with the strength we need off the bench (because ON AVERAGE that is what we could expect, that Danny will be a bench player as opposed to a starter). Add to this that ANY OF THE THREE OUTCOMES WITH DANNY IS A POSITIVE FOR THE TEAM - can't play? Expiring (which we desperately need for 2014 FA period) or retires injured (taking his salary off the LT limit for the 2013-2014 season and therefore it could be used by the trade deadline if we know it is going to take place - remember, LT is calculated by payroll at the end of the season). Can play well enough to play off the bench? Improves our bench. Can play well enough to start? Improves our bench by sending a more mature Lance to lead it.

    The ONLY problem with either second or third scenario is the idea that "egos" wouldn't let players accept bench roles, because they've said they want to start, somehow exactly the same as Collison. WRONG. "I want to start" is NOT AT ALL the same as "I don't want to come off the bench". I really get tired of people ac ting like wanting to start is some kind of temper tantrum - do you REALLY want anyone other than an aging role player to say, "No, I never want to start, I'm perfectly happy playing limited minutes off the bench"? I want EVERY player to have a goal to start. There's nothing wrong with that unless they somehow feel ENTITLED to it - in which case we have the ego issue, and in no case have we seen any indication whatsoever of that attitude from Lance or Danny. It is unfair and insulting to their professionalism to suggest it at this point, since it not only implies they are really selfish jerks it ALSO implies that they are lying through their teeth when they say they'll do whatever the team needs (this is ESPECIALLY true for Danny who already HAS done whatever the team needed on a number of occasions).
    Lance would get squirrelly every time it looked like Granger was ready to come back. I don't think it was selfishness or anything nefarious. I think it was just insecurity. He was a guy that Vogel, Shaw, and West had to manage a lot. He made huge strides last year, but he's still a pretty immature kid - as we all were at 22.

    At the same time, early/mid last season, rumbles were that Danny would not be happy coming back to a reserve role. Not happy enough to be a bad actor? Probably not, but there was some low-key tension/concern - as is to be expected in anything that could significantly alter the status quo.

    None of this indicate that the players are or will be problems due to character flaws. It is just a potentially difficult situation for the two of them.

    However, winning solves everything. If the Pacers come out next year and continue on their current path, then everyone will be good soldiers. If they struggle, then this situation will be one of the areas that will bear the most strain. That is simply the way things work.

    Regarding trading Danny, I would say this. Unless the Pacers get expiring deals when they trade him, then they are putting themselves dangerously close to the position of losing Lance next year, as well. Any player they get back now or at the deadline with a significant salary on next year's books could result in it being a de facto trade of Danny and Lance for that player.

    Comment


    • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

      Originally posted by count55 View Post

      However, winning solves everything. If the Pacers come out next year and continue on their current path, then everyone will be good soldiers. If they struggle, then this situation will be one of the areas that will bear the most strain. That is simply the way things work.
      Most likely, but you never know. Didn't we trade Antonio Davis in large part because he wanted to start? And that was in 1999 after the team had gone to the Conference Finals two straight years. Winning certainly helps, but it never completely erases egos.

      Comment


      • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Most likely, but you never know. Didn't we trade Antonio Davis in large part because he wanted to start? And that was in 1999 after the team had gone to the Conference Finals two straight years. Winning certainly helps, but it never completely erases egos.
        True, but this is a one-year situation. I think the Antonio trade was partially motivated by his desire to start, but not necessarily "in large part." The Pacers looked extremely old and slow in their '99 ECF loss to the Knicks, and they were especially hurt by Camby. I believe that the desire to get younger and more athletic was the reason for the deal, and Antonio was the asset required to get the deal done. It wasn't a "dump Antonio" move.

        Comment


        • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Unless the Pacers get expiring deals when they trade him, then they are putting themselves dangerously close to the position of losing Lance next year, as well. Any player they get back now or at the deadline with a significant salary on next year's books could result in it being a de facto trade of Danny and Lance for that player.
          So, is it basically beyond the pale? Or are there a couple of scenarios where one year expirings could come our way?
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

            The only trade scenario that would make sense for Granger is one that returns an expiring contract of
            a role player that can contribute and a player on a rookie deal for 2-3 more years who has potential to
            help next year going forward.

            Comment


            • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Most likely, but you never know. Didn't we trade Antonio Davis in large part because he wanted to start? And that was in 1999 after the team had gone to the Conference Finals two straight years. Winning certainly helps, but it never completely erases egos.
              I think AD's "desire" was a bit more strongly expressed than just answering "I want to start" as part of an interview about how he sees his future.
              BillS

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

              Comment


              • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                The ONLY problem with either second or third scenario is the idea that "egos" wouldn't let players accept bench roles, because they've said they want to start, somehow exactly the same as Collison. WRONG. "I want to start" is NOT AT ALL the same as "I don't want to come off the bench". I really get tired of people ac ting like wanting to start is some kind of temper tantrum - do you REALLY want anyone other than an aging role player to say, "No, I never want to start, I'm perfectly happy playing limited minutes off the bench"? I want EVERY player to have a goal to start. There's nothing wrong with that unless they somehow feel ENTITLED to it - in which case we have the ego issue, and in no case have we seen any indication whatsoever of that attitude from Lance or Danny. It is unfair and insulting to their professionalism to suggest it at this point, since it not only implies they are really selfish jerks it ALSO implies that they are lying through their teeth when they say they'll do whatever the team needs (this is ESPECIALLY true for Danny who already HAS done whatever the team needed on a number of occasions).
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                  Originally posted by bunt View Post
                  That's kind of my whole point.

                  One, I don't think he'll be traded at least in the offseason because I don't see another team willing to trade anything of value for a player that missed virtually the entire season with an uncommon injury.

                  Two, even though it likely won't happen, I'd like to see a healthy Granger become the leader of the bench. His whole career with the Pacers he's been the focal point of the offense. He won't be that with the starters but he could resume that role playing as the 6th man.

                  And third, the idea that the Pacers shouldn't trade Granger at any costs out of loyalty is absurd and just plain silly. I'm not advocating cutting him or trading him for next to nothing simply to get him off the team. If the right trade came along that made sense for the team, just like any other player, you make the trade.

                  And Granger has been a good player and a good citizen his entire time with the Pacers.. But let's not forget that each time he could have left but didn't, it may have also had something to do with the Pacers offering him more money than anyone else. Yes, loyalty is important and it needs to go both ways.
                  To me it goes like tis. Danny was loyal to us and we have to be loyal to him. Simple as that.

                  Sure, if we get an absolutely amazing offer for him (about 0.5% chance of this happening) then it would make sense to trade him but not to a hell-hole.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I would suggest you find a nice video and treat him to it. Preferably something from the European Death Metal Scene, that seems to be his type of music.
                    Request granted


                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The ONLY problem with either second or third scenario is the idea that "egos" wouldn't let players accept bench roles, because they've said they want to start, somehow exactly the same as Collison. WRONG. "I want to start" is NOT AT ALL the same as "I don't want to come off the bench". I really get tired of people ac ting like wanting to start is some kind of temper tantrum - do you REALLY want anyone other than an aging role player to say, "No, I never want to start, I'm perfectly happy playing limited minutes off the bench"? I want EVERY player to have a goal to start. There's nothing wrong with that unless they somehow feel ENTITLED to it - in which case we have the ego issue, and in no case have we seen any indication whatsoever of that attitude from Lance or Danny. It is unfair and insulting to their professionalism to suggest it at this point, since it not only implies they are really selfish jerks it ALSO implies that they are lying through their teeth when they say they'll do whatever the team needs (this is ESPECIALLY true for Danny who already HAS done whatever the team needed on a number of occasions).
                      This is a fine position, but it also means you are calling Wells "unfair" and someone who insults Danny's professionalism—if pacers4ever's attribution was correct:

                      Not that I agree with him, but when Wells was co-hosting with Grady he stated Granger's ego wouldn't let him come off the bench. I would guess that same ego won't let him become less of a volume shooter....Wells made it seem like Granger meshing with this team would be difficult.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        Request granted


                        Well, now I know what music PS&E is going with for the player introductions next fall . . .

                        Comment


                        • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          This is a fine position, but it also means you are calling Wells "unfair" and someone who insults Danny's professionalism—if pacers4ever's attribution was correct:
                          Wells can do that all he wants, but I'd want to know the exact quote - there's a big difference between "I think <statement>" and "<statement>". One is speculation, the other implies certainty. I don't have any problems with people saying it "might" be an issue (though I will argue against it, as I have), I have problems with people calling Granger a definite cancer if he stays.
                          BillS

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

                          Comment


                          • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                            Well I do like the opening guitar riffs. I can do without the vocalist.
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Re: CBS: Pacers offering Granger in trades. Oh, and Green obviously.

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Wells can do that all he wants, but I'd want to know the exact quote - there's a big difference between "I think " and "". One is speculation, the other implies certainty. I don't have any problems with people saying it "might" be an issue (though I will argue against it, as I have), I have problems with people calling Granger a definite cancer if he stays.
                              I agree. A definite cancer is out of place. But I do count it as a concern. Hopefully, one that could be overcome.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X