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 Sollozzo View Post
    He will never again be more important than Hibbert or Paul George. It's those two and then everyone else.
    More important isn't always the same as more talented.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      More important isn't always the same as more talented.


      We don't make it to Game 7 of the ECF's without Roy Hibbert. We don't make it to Game 7 of the ECF's without Paul George. We did, however, make it to Game 7 of the ECF's without Danny Granger.

      Call it whatever you want, but those two guys are on a level above every other player on the team.

      Comment


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

        I'll mention that the Pacers took a chance on a free agent who was coming back from an injury...what had he proven when they did so? I don't want to trade Dany because his presence brings immediate improvement to our first 6 players either thru he or Stephenson coming off the bench. We would have him, we don't have to look for another player that might end up being another Gerald Green.

        EDIT....that brings up the question. What free agent is out there, that we could afford and brings what Danny brings to the Pacers?
        Last edited by indygeezer; 07-03-2013, 08:56 AM.
        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 Sollozzo View Post
          We don't make it to Game 7 of the ECF's without Roy Hibbert. We don't make it to Game 7 of the ECF's without Paul George. We did, however, make it to Game 7 of the ECF's without Danny Granger.
          I feel like you are arguing against something I never said.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            I feel like you are arguing against something I never said.

            You said that if healthy, he will at worst be the second best player on the team. I'm arguing that any way you slice it, he will never again be better than Hibbert or George, and I'm using last year's run to backup my point. I think that most people here would agree that if you subtract Hibbert or George, the team does not make it to Game 7 of the ECF's.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              You said that if healthy, he will at worst be the second best player on the team. I'm arguing that any way you slice it, he will never again be better than Hibbert or George, and I'm using last year's run to backup my point. I think that most people here would agree that if you subtract Hibbert or George, the team does not make it to Game 7 of the ECF's.
              Two things. First you are arguing value, I was making a statement about talent. Both George and Hibbert are more valuable because they are both great defenders. Second I never said he would be better than Hibbert or George, only that he would be at worst the second best player. It is a subtle but important difference, although I understand the confusion.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                You said that if healthy, he will at worst be the second best player on the team. I'm arguing that any way you slice it, he will never again be better than Hibbert or George, and I'm using last year's run to backup my point. I think that most people here would agree that if you subtract Hibbert or George, the team does not make it to Game 7 of the ECF's.
                I'm not so quick to put West below Danny.
                "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 McKeyFan View Post
                  I'm not so quick to put West below Danny.

                  I would certainly take West over Granger at this point. Granger has essentially been replaced by George and Stephenson. However, there's no replacement for West on the roster.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    You said that if healthy, he will at worst be the second best player on the team. I'm arguing that any way you slice it, he will never again be better than Hibbert or George, and I'm using last year's run to backup my point. I think that most people here would agree that if you subtract Hibbert or George, the team does not make it to Game 7 of the ECF's.
                    We wouldn't have made Game 7 of ECF without Hill or Stephenson either. But I get your point. As far as how important they are to the team right now (not looking at the future) I'd say George, Hibbert, West, Hill, Granger, Stephenson in that order. At the end of the day these 6 guys haven't gotten to play a season together yet. Some on here don't want to even give them a chance.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                      We wouldn't have made Game 7 of ECF without Hill or Stephenson either. But I get your point. As far as how important they are to the team right now (not looking at the future) I'd say George, Hibbert, West, Hill, Granger, Stephenson in that order. At the end of the day these 6 guys haven't gotten to play a season together yet. Some on here don't want to even give them a chance.
                      Somehow that pecking order agrees with me. I hold out hope that Danny proves healthy, we win a title with the above-mentioned players leading the way, and we manage to re-sign both Danny AND Lance. However, if Lance's wide variability in play continues, so will the range in his market value ... which implies that someone will be overly romanced by his "potential." (What did some of us keep saying about PGeorge? "His value will never be higher"?) To me, it's not a foregone conclusion that Lance remains a Pacer beyond next season.


                      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        But Granger has taken less and less shots each year with Vogel. He has said that this is Paul George's team now.

                        I didn't heard Wells podcast but everything that I've read so far indicates that he has no problem being the second / third fiddle.
                        I also heard Wells say that. I've wondered about the ego thing myself. On the other hand, Wells never struck me as someone to rely on for the truth about things like this.

                        Comment


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

                          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).
                          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 Tom White View Post
                            I also heard Wells say that. I've wondered about the ego thing myself. On the other hand, Wells never struck me as someone to rely on for the truth about things like this.
                            If Granger did have that kind of ego I suspect we would have seen some sign of it outside of just a random quote from a writer no one really cares for, and everyone seems to think is out of the loop. I am sure Danny has an ego, but I have seen no signs to suggest it is of the kind that would be offended by a better player starting over him, or him coming off the bench because it is better strategically while still getting starter minutes.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by immortality View Post
                              You guys realize insurance covered most of his salary. This happens in sports, there is no point in trading Granger until the trade deadline. If Granger is even 80% he is better than just having Reddick who just signed for 24/4.
                              I thought a player had to miss an entire season, or retire due to injury, before the insurance kicked in? Is that not correct?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers make Granger available - Ken Berger CBS

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Didn't think it was necessary. Besides, the Nuggets should be taking a hard look at Gerald Green. Think about it: Pairing up JaVale McGee and Gerald Green? Bar none, two of the most athletically gifted players in the league who just so happen to be the two dumbest players in the league. Unintentional comedy potential through the roof.
                                Cue Benny Hill music!
                                Danger Zone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X