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

Granger out for three weeks

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

  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    See, it's stuff like that. That's why people keep saying that you have an agenda and spread propaganda. This flu was proven by a fellow PD poster. Do you think that he was just trying to cover it up as well? Do you call him a liar?
    If that wasn't bad enough, the flu was prior to him starting to play for a few games in the spring, NOT prior to him being done for the year (that was later, when we were playing @DAL if I recall correctly).

    Comment


    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      If he did it wasn't in the posts I responded to.
      My bad. BBall was indeed articulate on the continuity argument, but on the merits themselves of a healthy Danny or Lance, the articulate points came from the problem child who shall not be named nor quoted:

      Not just preseason, I'm my case I'm afraid of him jacking up shots like he used to while shooting a horrible percentage, many call it "slow start" and "Danny been Danny", I'm afraid of him messing up with the defensive advantage the starting unit has, his legs are not there so everybody has to cover for him, we saw an small sample two weeks ago, his defense was horrible(I know some disagree and think he is a lock down defender because Ron Artest told us that years ago).

      Another reason I don't want him in the starting unit is because the Pacers starting unit matches really well with Miami, Lance guards Dwade while PG guards Lebron, if you start Danny he will have to go against Wade and we all know what can happen there(unless some are in denial and think he can take on Lebron)
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        Switch Granger and Lance and the same holds true. It isn't about will we or will we not be good without one or the other, it is about how do you use them to make the team better as a whole.
        You can't use someone who is constantly injured. And until Granger can get healthy, no one knows which way playing Granger and Lance will make the team better. What I do know is if Granger wants to start he needs to earn that starting position. I'm not an advocate of giving the starting position back to Granger just b/c he's healthy enough to play. IMO, he has to earn it back with his play.

        If by some chance Granger has a problem with injuries this season, and yet is given the starting nod over Lance, the constant fluxation in starting line ups is not beneficial to the starting group not to mention the possible chemistry issues of constant change in the starters. JMOAA

        Comment


        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          You can't use someone who is constantly injured. And until Granger can get healthy, no one knows which way playing Granger and Lance will make the team better. What I do know is if Granger wants to start he needs to earn that starting position. I'm not an advocate of giving the starting position back to Granger just b/c he's healthy enough to play. IMO, he has to earn it back with his play.

          If by some chance Granger has a problem with injuries this season, and yet is given the starting nod over Lance, the constant fluxation in starting line ups is not beneficial to the starting group not to mention the possible chemistry issues of constant change in the starters. JMOAA
          By all accounts, that matter, he did earn the starting position already.

          I don't understand why people think there will be chemistry issues if Granger misses some time. You guys are acting as if Hill, West, George, and Hibbert will only be playing with Granger and then only play with Lance if Granger is out. That isn't how it works. These guys are playing together all of the time in practice and in games. No matter if Granger is playing or not those four won't be playing exclusively with Granger. They will also be spending time playing with Stephenson. They will probably spend some time playing with OJ and Solo or Cope too. Not to mention they played with Stephenson all last season. If you have players who are team focused, who communicate, and who like each other you don't need 82 games to build chemistry, especially when these players have spent 2 seasons playing on the same team. If you want to worry about chemistry worry about Watson, Scola, Hill, and Copeland, and how they play with our established players. You know the players who are knew and who have never played on this team before. Those are the players that need to build chemistry. With the starters you can plug in Granger or Lance and it will be fine. There won't be any loss of chemistry.

          Last year the Miami Heat only had 3 players start over 70 games (it wasn't the big 2 and tag-along), the Knicks 0, Nets 3, Bulls 2, Warriors 4, Memphis 4, Clippers 4, and the Spurs 1. I didn't look at all of the teams, but of the teams I looked at only the Pacers and Thunder had 5 players start over 70 games. I don't know about you, but the Spurs chemistry is kick ***, but they still survived to make it to the NBA Finals.

          Comment


          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

            http://instagram.com/p/gEY6IAmYav/

            here's the team coming out (notice granger in the wheel chair)

            Comment


            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              If Solo is good enough to start those first five crucial minutes of the game, then he's good enough to play reasonably heavy minutes. There's no separating the two. Find me any elite team in the NBA who starts a guy for 5 minutes in each half and then doesn't play him in any of the next 19 minutes.
              11-12 OKC: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2012.html

              Thabo Sefolosha started all the games that he appeared in (he missed 24 games due to injury, though) and he only played 21.8 MPG. Thabo's replacement in the starting unit was Daequan Cook who started in 22 of the 24 games that Thabo missed and played 17.4 MPG. The only time that Harden started was when both Thabo and Cook were injured. Still, Harden received the 3rd most PT behind only Durant and Westbrook.

              OKC reached the Finals in that year, by the way.

              10-11 Mavericks: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2011.html

              DeShawn Stevenson started 54 games. However, he only played 16.1 MPG. Jason Terry who started only 10 games played 31.3 MPG and was 3rd in minutes behind Dirk and Kidd.

              The 10-11 Mavs won the title, by the way.

              Last year's Knicks: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/2013.html

              An assortment of players started at the wings for them. Kidd started 48 games and played 26.9 MPG. Ronnie Brewer 34 games and played 15.5 MPG. Prigioni started 18 games and played 16.2 MPG. Do you want to know who didn't start any game? JR Smith. He had the most minutes played behind Melo and Felton but he never started.

              The Knicks lost in the 2nd round to us as well know.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Miles played 55 total minutes last season. I'm not saying that Vogel should have given a spot in the rotation, but he could have easily given Plumlee more minutes throughout the season if he wanted to. There were plenty of games that the Pacers won comfortably where putting Miles in wouldn't have hurt anything. I don't care personally because I don't think Miles is very good, but the idea that we just had zero minutes to spare throughout the season just isn't true.
                Miles wasn't even in the line-up most of the time. He spent some time with the Mad Ants and Vogel preferred to use the last line-up slot to a wing rather than a big. In any case, we had a bigger issue in the wings than we had at Center so I can understand Vogel's decision.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                  Whatever it takes to get him healthy.
                  Turner and Young are THE FUTURE!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                    Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                    http://instagram.com/p/gEY6IAmYav/

                    here's the team coming out (notice granger in the wheel chair)
                    They pranked Solo good... MG introduces the Pacers and out comes Solo leading the way.... with nobody behind him!

                    Welcome to the League, rook!

                    He still got a better introduction to the NBA than Oladipo did though.
                    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                      One week down, two to go.

                      If the schedule holds up, Danny could be available in two weeks. Perhaps before the New York game on the 20th.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        One week down, two to go.

                        If the schedule holds up, Danny could be available in two weeks. Perhaps before the New York game on the 20th.
                        I think it is going to take half the season to find out what Danny level Danny can return to.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          One week down, two to go.

                          If the schedule holds up, Danny could be available in two weeks. Perhaps before the New York game on the 20th.
                          Yes, and he will be rusty as a nail that set outside over the winter. The real question is when (or perhaps IF) he will get in game shape and be 80% of his former self. January would be a good time to take that measurement.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                            Can't confirm where I read it (maybe in that Grantland artcle on Danny) but he thinks he will be available earlier than the 3-week timetable.
                            Never forget

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Yes, and he will be rusty as a nail that set outside over the winter. The real question is when (or perhaps IF) he will get in game shape and be 80% of his former self. January would be a good time to take that measurement.
                              I thought he was looking pretty good in the last two games before the calf injury.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Yes, and he will be rusty as a nail that set outside over the winter. The real question is when (or perhaps IF) he will get in game shape and be 80% of his former self. January would be a good time to take that measurement.
                                And some of you couldn't be happier if it takes that long, right?

                                By the way, he looked anything but rusty in the preseason game @CHI. I don't think it will take that long.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X