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

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Lol thanks to Hicks for teaching me how to use google to find old posts(way better than the search tool in PD) I found this thread:



    http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...Granger-s-knee



    I guess I was not the only one concerned, funny that Hicks is one of those people that has been thanking the crap out of Anthem(and others) anytime somebody tries to ridicule me about by asking "what injuries"? and he opened a thread in 2006 about how concerned he was about his "injuries"
    So you can find a post I made from 2006, yet you can't find one of your own from 2008 forward? I'm thanking Anthem because he's right to ask you to produce some evidence, and you dodge, dismiss, or ignore his challenge. You now have the power of Google of on your side, so get busy and do it.

    As for my post, I don't remember it at all, and that's not surprising for a few reasons. First of all, it was one of over 50,000 posts I made, and I made it seven years and nearly three months ago. Even if my personal memory wasn't below average in the first place (which, sadly, it is), I doubt I would have recalled that thread, what with the whopping 18 replies it generated and the fact that it took place over half of a decade prior to Danny finally having a serious knee problem.

    If you want to reference my posts on Danny's injury, how about referencing the one I did in the last few months, where I reviewed/researched whatever I could find on his injury history dating back to New Mexico? I can't recall if I started my own thread for it or responded in some other thread, but I'm having trouble locating it. It had links to old articles from newspapers and websites, most of them back around the time Danny was in college or just drafted.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      And you are really funny too \
      Explain.

      edit: I'm having fun with this google search, here is a nice post I found:


      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...anger-vs-Bynum

      Lol now all those that always accuse me of never saying anything good about Danny need to shut up
      Well, you just stepped on another rake. So now we know that in January 2009 you would not trade him for anyone but maybe LeBron, despite your declarative statement that (these are your words) "anybody with a brain knew the writing was on the wall regarding his knees, all the signs were there just some people didn't want to see them."

      I guess anybody with a brain . . . after January 2009 . . . knew.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Explain.



        Well, you just stepped on another rake. So now we know that in January 2009 you would not trade him for anyone but maybe LeBron, despite your declarative statement that (these are your words) "anybody with a brain knew the writing was on the wall regarding his knees, all the signs were there just some people didn't want to see them."

        I guess anybody with a brain . . . after January 2009 . . . knew.

        Juts because I saw the writing on the wall doesn't mean that I was not a DG fan, even you knew he had "knee issues" that according to you few months ago was some made up bs by me.
        @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

          Could you stop twisting everything around? Let's stick to facts:

          Fact: Pretty much everyone knew Danny had at least one knee issue in college.
          Fact: This issue caused him to miss very few games.
          Fact: For the first seven years of his NBA career, Danny did not miss very many games due to a knee issue.
          Fact: No one, including you, knew before October of 2012 that he was going to be out indefinitely with a serious knee issue in the 2012-2013 season.
          Fact: There is no evidence of you saying, prior to October 2012, that it's important we trade Danny Granger specifically because you knew he was about to go out with a serious knee issue.

          Comment


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

            Question for vnzla81: What do you want? What do you try to achieve when you start talking about Danny and his knee? What's your goal?

            Comment


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

              Also, explain why you said able is funny.

              Comment


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

                Comment


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

                  and on he moves to troll another thread
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


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

                    I bet he did say he wanted to trade Danny. Under his other avatar?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Could you stop twisting everything around? Let's stick to facts:
                      The more I come up with facts it looks like somebody else is the one twisting or "forgetting" things.

                      Fact: Pretty much everyone knew Danny had at least one knee issue in college.
                      Not everybody, you even acted like you didn't know for months until now because you "forgot" the thread you made.

                      Fact: This issue caused him to miss very few games.
                      True but I don't see what are you trying to get with this, the fact that he was playing injured should worry people more and I remember complaining at the time because the clown was playing him injured.

                      Fact: For the first seven years of his NBA career, Danny did not miss very many games due to a knee issue.
                      As you said on that thread I posted "his knee was swollen" and he was still playing like that, in fact if I have a so called "franchise player" on my team I rather let him miss games before playing him hurt, playing hurt is probably one of the reasons why he is messed up now.

                      Fact: No one, including you, knew before October of 2012 that he was going to be out indefinitely with a serious knee issue in the 2012-2013 season.
                      I didn't know he was going to be out indefinitely but I always knew that the teams predictions(plus knee issues during his career) were going to come back to hunt him.

                      Fact: There is no evidence of you saying, prior to October 2012, that it's important we trade Danny Granger specifically because you knew he was about to go out with a serious knee issue.
                      I didn't predict that he was going to be out with a serious knee injury, I predicted that his game was going to decline quicker because of his knees issues reason why I have been suggesting to trade him for something before his value was nothing.
                      Last edited by vnzla81; 09-22-2013, 04:00 PM.
                      @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 Hicks View Post
                        Also, explain why you said able is funny.
                        He is funny because he is grumpy and sometimes writes crazy s*** that I don't understand.
                        @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 RamBo_Lamar View Post

                          HELLO????
                          Fixed
                          to annoy myself and others .. lmao






                          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                            Do you think Granger will play defense with the mentality of a ballet dancer? The defense didn't improve because Granger left and Lance came in. In fact, our lineup with Gerald Green starting was better than our defense last season. I'm sure you would agree it wasn't because of anything special Green did on defense. It's the other 4 guys who improved both on individual and team defense. The defense will be terrific as long as we have Hibbert back there, or at least Paul George and a rim protector.

                            "If it's not broke, don't fix it" is the rallying card for mediocrity everywhere. At what point does something become "not broke?" It's completely subjective and when you're talking about team sports there are too many variables to think in terms of "broke" or "not broke." Plus, anybody who says our team doesn't need to be "fixed" is really using it as a blanket excuse because the proposed alternative isn't quite good enough to override the rule. If OKC called and offered Kevin Durant for David West and Lance, that would be a major shakeup of our lineup which "isn't broke." But it probably becomes an "exception" that's good enough to ignore the rule. With that trade, we would then be "fixing" what was "not broke." It's hypothetical, sure, but so is plugging Granger into the lineup with their current skills.

                            It's not about fixing anything, it's about improving.
                            So you would argue being considered the best defensive team in the league is broke. Okay I wrote that down. Also, I didn't say that Granger leaving made the defense better whatsoever. I said - last year, they had a great starting lineup on the defensive side of the ball.

                            I'm not even going to bother to respond in-depth to the Kevin Durant/DWest & Lance trade comment when the thread is about Lance and Granger.

                            Lastly, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a GM for the NBA and knew that franchises never ever try to fix anything wrong with their basketball teams, ever. Just improving. Like the Bobcats. They don't need to fix anything wrong with their franchise. They just need to improve a bit, and they could have been 1 game away from the finals. Every team. The same. Ever. My apologies. I should have thought of that.
                            Last edited by RobRoy317; 09-22-2013, 06:23 PM.
                            "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by RobRoy317 View Post
                              So you would argue being considered the best defensive team in the league is broke. Okay I wrote that down. Also, I didn't say that Granger leaving made the defense better whatsoever. I said - last year, they had a great starting lineup on the defensive side of the ball.

                              I'm not even going to bother to respond in-depth to the Kevin Durant/DWest & Lance trade comment when the thread is about Lance and Granger.

                              Lastly, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a GM for the NBA and knew that franchises never ever try to fix anything wrong with their basketball teams, ever. Just improving. Like the Bobcats. They don't need to fix anything wrong with their franchise. They just need to improve a bit, and they could have been 1 game away from the finals. Every team. The same. Ever. My apologies. I should have thought of that.
                              You misinterpreted literally everything I wrote. (For clarification to watchdogs of the word "literally, I am not using it to mean "figuratively" in this instance).

                              First of all, I guess I don't understand why you would argue for Lance to be in the starting lineup if you don't think he's an improvement over Granger?

                              I argued against using the words "broke" and "fix." I don't think they apply because a basketball team cannot be considered in black and white terms. What I do think is that Granger in place of Lance makes the lineup better, thus improving the team. You also seemed to have taken the wrong context of "improve" and used your last paragraph to try to embarrass me. However, i was using the word improve to mean "improve the team."

                              The trade comment wasn't a proposed trade and thus shouldn't be ignored unless you're going to ignore the rest of my argument. It was an example used to clarify why I think the broke/fixed terminology is ineffective. Because yes, the team was good last year. It was not "broke." But the chances are there are trades or lineup changes that can be made to improve the team. So even a team that is "not broke" can be "fixed."
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                I would be curious to know if he, or anybody else for that matter, was talking about the writing on the wall regarding Danny and his knees prior to last preseason.
                                Nope. Here's the history thread that vnzla put together. Note the lack of prediction.

                                http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...issues-history

                                Also, as an aside, google accepts "site: pacersdigest.com" as a search parameter. Except take out the space... I had to add it to keep from getting a smiley.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X