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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

    Why're we staking out camps on this? Because we do on everything I guess, especially where Granger's involved. Who cares who starts or gets more minutes? I trust Vogel to figure out where each would be better suited. Danny being back healthy obviously makes us better, that's all that matters.

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      Or . . . keeps Lance on the bench in favor Gerald Green? That actually happened.

      Several of us here were screaming for Lance to start instead. And guess what? We were right and Vogel was "stupid" (your words, not mine).

      I'm a big Vogel fan. But he does make mistakes. He's human.
      You realize at that point in time Green had proven more in an actual NBA game than Lance had, and that Green had been brought in to be our 6th man. Not hard to see why a coach would go with the vet over the younger player. In fact I would bet 95% of all NBA coaches would have gone with Green in that situation.

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Let's discuss that. I agree the starters need better shooting and we could use a superior shooter like Granger in the starting lineup. But what does Danny do better than Lance, other than shooting? Maybe he gets fouled more and gets to the line, which is again associated with his ability to shoot the ball more than anything. So, it's nice to have a very good shooter and a fairly good scorer in Granger in your starting lineup.

        But what does that lineup need most, both on offense and defense?

        Who's the better defender? I would say Lance. Do we have guys who can break down a defense and dish for an EASY bucket? Yes we do, and that's Lance. What about ball handling and driving to the bucket...who really puts pressure on the defense? Lance. Who's more likely to be healthy? Lance. Who's about as old as Granger was coming out of New Mexico? Lance. Do we have a traditional PG? Nope. Would it help to have another guy on the floor who knows how to dribble and pass at a high level. Yes it would...and that's what Lance gives you. Let's not forget how much better Lance shoots compared to the prior year...both from 2 and 3...and that's not one of his many strengths over Granger.
        Danny is a much better scorer than Lance is at this point. So I would say that Danny is not only a better shooter, but he is a much better scorer and is better at getting easy opportunities (Danny gets to the FT line a lot--not at an elite rate, but at a high rate, and converts those chances at a high percentage) Danny is better in the post also, and doesn't commit many turnovers. Danny has demonstrated the ability to be a 1st or 2nd option type of scorer, and has consistently averaged between 18 and 20 ppg with defenses focused on him over the course of several seasons. Danny is also pretty good (again not elite, but pretty good) in clutch situations.

        If Lance were as effective offensively as you're saying, why weren't we more effective offensively? Why didn't he handle the ball more in pressure situations, and do the whole drive and dish game? He did it occasionally, but not nearly as consistently as you're making it seem. If he were a guy who could consistently handle/drive/score/dish at a high rate, then you would be 100% correct. But he isn't, he's a 5th option guard who does a good job of scoring when the defense isn't focused on him as much as the other 4 players on the court. Lance doesn't shoot, score, get to the FT line, nor convert FT's at anything but an average level for an NBA 2-Guard at this point in his career. He could (and should) improve greatly at this, but at this point he's not there consistently.

        As far as playing with the other players on the court, guys like Roy and D.West would greatly benefit from an extra shooter on the court. Also, with PG tabbed as the next superstar, the ball should honestly be in his hands much more so that he is able to make plays--whether it's scoring or passing. Having a shooting/scoring/FTA threat on the court in Danny leaves less defensive focus on Paul, Roy, and David. This is why we ranked in the top 10 in off and def when Danny was our starter and leading scorer 2 years ago.

        As far as the defensive side, I believe they're a wash, but I'll throw a bone and say that Lance is a better defender. BUT is Lance a better defender to the point that we couldn't use Danny's positives offensively? I say no, but I'm sure you, Pacergeek, Vnzla, and Sollozzo (and others) believe so.

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          The truth about Lance is he was a good glue guy. He wasn't even good enough offensively to be considered a good 6th man. He was not as good at scoring in 1v1 situation as Granger has been. The only two aspects on offense where he was better than Granger was on fast breaks, and on back-door cuts. Otherwise Granger has done everything important as well or better than Lance did last season. The facts are Granger has been a far superior offensive player than Lance was last year in every way. They have different styles, Lance does some things better, but Granger has been an offensive threat no matter where he is or if he has the ball or not.

          Rebounding, Granger averages 5.2 for a career Lance averaged 3.9 last season. Not likely to see any significant difference in rebounding. If anything we should have a better rebounding team because Granger and Lance are both better rebounders than whoever was on our bench last season.

          Defensively if Granger takes a hit it will be in this category, but based on history the starters with Granger were a better defensive unit than the starters with Lance. .97 vs .99 points per possession, so not significant.

          Offensively Lance will have to take a bigger jump this summer than he did last to even start to sniff at bringing what Granger brings. I don't expect Granger to immediately come in and be his old self, but once he knocks the rust off I expect we will see something similar to what we saw before. Defense is a bigger question. Until proven otherwise though I'm not going to assume a significant drop for Granger. I also wouldn't expect a significant increase in Lance's abilities either.




          The question of who should start is more about who you think will be better off the bench more than who you think is the better player or who fits better with the starters. I would prefer Lance starts exactly for that reason.

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              Originally posted by RobRoy317 View Post
              When 2k14 comes out, I'll sim 2 seasons - one with Granger, one with Born Ready, and get back to you guys.
              Due to your avatar you win the internet, so therefore whatever you say goes.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                If Lance were as effective offensively as you're saying, why weren't we more effective offensively? Why didn't he handle the ball more in pressure situations, and do the whole drive and dish game?
                I think that is the correct question. Some are saying it's because Vogel has the right idea of how to use Lance. Others of us are saying that Vogel, as good as he is, does make mistakes sometimes, did make a mistake by not starting Lance at the beginning of the season, and may have been mistaken not to give Lance more opportunities last year. When given opportunities, Lance has done pretty well.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  That's it?
                  The question was "when has Granger ever carried us to closing out a playoff series", I gave the answer, I'm not sure what is funny about it.

                  Are you now saying that.....Oh wait never mind, violating the prime directive here. Instead I present you the following.



                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    The truth about Lance is he was a good glue guy. He wasn't even good enough offensively to be considered a good 6th man. He was not as good at scoring in 1v1 situation as Granger has been. The only two aspects on offense where he was better than Granger was on fast breaks, and on back-door cuts. Otherwise Granger has done everything important as well or better than Lance did last season. The facts are Granger has been a far superior offensive player than Lance was last year in every way. They have different styles, Lance does some things better, but Granger has been an offensive threat no matter where he is or if he has the ball or not.

                    Rebounding, Granger averages 5.2 for a career Lance averaged 3.9 last season. Not likely to see any significant difference in rebounding. If anything we should have a better rebounding team because Granger and Lance are both better rebounders than whoever was on our bench last season.

                    Defensively if Granger takes a hit it will be in this category, but based on history the starters with Granger were a better defensive unit than the starters with Lance. .97 vs .99 points per possession, so not significant.

                    Offensively Lance will have to take a bigger jump this summer than he did last to even start to sniff at bringing what Granger brings. I don't expect Granger to immediately come in and be his old self, but once he knocks the rust off I expect we will see something similar to what we saw before. Defense is a bigger question. Until proven otherwise though I'm not going to assume a significant drop for Granger. I also wouldn't expect a significant increase in Lance's abilities either.




                    The question of who should start is more about who you think will be better off the bench more than who you think is the better player or who fits better with the starters. I would prefer Lance starts exactly for that reason.
                    I don't completely agree, but I think it's a pretty good post.

                    The part in bold I would like to comment on. I actually think where Lance is most superior on offense is initiating things. He either dishes off to create for others or has been able to make some moves that allow him to score. I think Lance is better at this than Granger, but I agree that Granger is better one on one, (right now, anyway.)
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      I don't completely agree, but I think it's a pretty good post.

                      The part in bold I would like to comment on. I actually think where Lance is most superior on offense is initiating things. He either dishes off to create for others or has been able to make some moves that allow him to score. I think Lance is better at this than Granger, but I agree that Granger is better one on one, (right now, anyway.)
                      Lance is actually better at that than anybody on the team, including Hill.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        The question was "when has Granger ever carried us to closing out a playoff series", I gave the answer, I'm not sure what is funny about it.

                        Are you now saying that.....Oh wait never mind, violating the prime directive here. Instead I present you the following.


                        Damn you now I can't get that song out of my head
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          OK, what playoff series did Reggie lead us to victory in prior to 94? I'll give you a hint - we didn't WIN an NBA playoff series until 94. So I'll even ask what playoff GAME Reggie led the Pacers to victory in prior to 94.



                          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
                          The fact that Reggie didn't win a playoff series until year 7 is no more relevant to Granger than Michael Jordan not winning a championship until year 7. The only thing that Reggie and Danny have in common is that they belong to the Pacers. People act as if Danny is going to shred teams in the playoffs during the later years of his career like Reggie just because neither won a series until year 7.

                          I'm not talking to you directly, Bill, but I remember when Reggie-Danny was debated a couple months ago. Debating Reggie vs. Danny is honestly kind of insulting to Reggie's legacy. It's nothing against Danny, but there's a reason that 31 is the only NBA retired uni for the Pacers. There's a reason that Reggie is in the HOF.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                            Man, I sure hope nobody on the team is worrying about scoring numbers. If there was ever a year where individual scoring numbers don't tell the whole story, this coming year should be it.

                            Everybody's numbers should be down. That's ok.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              How in the world did a discussion of Danny and Lance ever get so garbled that it has become a discussion of Danny and Reggie?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Who's the better defender? I would say Lance.
                                I'd argue that a Danny/PG wing is marginally stronger defensively than a PG/Lance one, but it's gonna depend some on matchups.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X