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 Hicks View Post
    I didn't even know what his stats were for either of those two games. I was looking to see how he moved and how comfortable I thought he looked. He looked very in rhythm with the starters @CHI and his movements seemed like pre-injury Danny to me.
    You have the advantage on me. I did not get to view any of the pre-season games, so all I can go by is the stats. Just seeing that he garnered 9 rebounds and a couple blocks in the Houston game told me he had regained some of his athleticism and strength.

    Comment


    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

      Originally posted by Tom White View Post
      You have the advantage on me. I did not get to view any of the pre-season games
      I'm starting to notice a trend here.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        If he looked like pre injury DG(for one or two quarters) I guess pre injury DG was worse than I thought, my bad for thinking that he was way better than whatever we saw in preseason.
        Don't let your blinders get in the way of sound judgment here!
        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: Granger out for three weeks

          Originally posted by able View Post
          Don't let your blinders get in the way of sound judgment here!
          Ha I'm not the one with the blinders here.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            I'm starting to notice a trend here.
            Preseason?

            DRose was great in the preseason. Notice how DRose has been playing in the regular season? 14.3ppg, 26% from three, 5.7 turnovers. Yes, 5.7 freaking turnovers...and only 4.3 assists.

            Chicago's record? 1-2

            Think that's hurting their chances for home court. YOU BET IT IS...him coming back rusty like Granger would be.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Preseason?

              DRose was great in the preseason. Notice how DRose has been playing in the regular season? 14.3ppg, 26% from three, 5.7 turnovers. Yes, 5.7 freaking turnovers...and only 4.3 assists.

              Chicago's record? 1-2

              Think that's hurting their chances for home court. YOU BET IT IS...him coming back rusty like Granger would be.
              A freak of nature like Drose had all pre season but (one game) plus 3 regular season games to get rid of the "rust" and he still looks bad, some people expect DG to be pre injury DG in just 10 games because they say so

              Note that I'm not even talking about Drose already been cleared to play since last season while DG was cleared a month ago(more or less not going to argue about it).
              Last edited by vnzla81; 11-05-2013, 07:27 PM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Yeah, like Frank Vogel.


                Here is the link, if you want to pay for it or if you have a subscription, but the second sentence paints the picture.
                http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...tm_source=t.co


                So the choices are between Frank Vogel, or Billy Keller.
                I like Frank a whole lot. But you have to take some of his statements with a grain of salt. He is attempting to manage egos and keep chemistry together. So he spends a lot of time stroking and "saying the right thing". There is indeed a difference between the wing players. Look at DWade and LeBron. You don't guard them with the same type of player.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Preseason?

                  DRose was great in the preseason. Notice how DRose has been playing in the regular season? 14.3ppg, 26% from three, 5.7 turnovers. Yes, 5.7 freaking turnovers...and only 4.3 assists.

                  Chicago's record? 1-2

                  Think that's hurting their chances for home court. YOU BET IT IS...him coming back rusty like Granger would be.
                  Terrible comparison, for many reasons.

                  1. The Bulls offense is built completely around Rose, the Pacers are not.
                  2. Rose is 100% reliant on his athleticism, Granger is not.
                  3. While Granger looked good moving around out there, Rose would go out and ice his knees.
                  4. Different injuries, different players, how well Rose does has no bearing on how well Granger does.

                  By the way, absolutely no one has said Granger wouldn't be rusty, no one single person. In fact, everyone has said he would be rusty. You know what, the only way to get rid of that rust is by playing. If you live in fear of rust, and don't play someone because they may be rusty, well they will never play ever again. Your logic in this situation is seriously jacked up. You act like playing Granger coming back is he worst thing ever.

                  I would gladly lose 10 regular season games if it means we have a better team in the playoffs. The Bulls would gladly lose these early games if it means Rose gets a chance to knock off his rust, and gets back to being the kind of player he can be by the time the playoffs come around. Homecourt advantage is meaningless. If you have the better team you will win the series. Miami didn't beat us because they had homecourt, they beat us because they were the better team. I don't care what the stats say about homecourt because those stats are the equivalent of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The vast majority of the time the team with the better regular season record is the better team. The have a better record for a reason.

                  Where that might not be true is in cases of injuries. For example last season, if it wasn't for Danny's injury we probably don't start with such a horrid record, and instead of the third seed we beat out the Knicks for the number two seed. Yeah, Rose may be costing the Bulls wins right now, and it may cost them homecourt, but you know what they are more likely to win in the playoffs by sucking right now as Rose works his way back into form than they are if they wait until they have homecourt wrapped up before Rose sees any playing time.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    I would gladly lose 10 regular season games if it means we have a better team in the playoffs.
                    Here is the root of it all. I don't want to lose home court. I don't think the Pacers advance without it.

                    Granger shouldn't be relied upon, either early or late in this season...not when you can instead rely on Lance. You only have so many chances. Look at the Colts. They won it all after many years of futility in the playoffs...but only once. Look at Chicago right now. An injured player relied upon does impact the team. Perhaps not as much as Rose but it will still matter. It's too important that our key players are healthy both early and late in the season.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                      Originally Posted by Eleazar
                      I would gladly lose 10 regular season games if it means we have a better team in the playoffs.
                      Wow ........
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        A freak of nature like Drose had all pre season but one game plus 3 games to get rid of the rust and he is still not ready yet but some people expect DG to be pre injury DG in just 10 games :shakehead:

                        Note that I'm not even talking about Drose already been cleared to play since last season.
                        I don't expect DG to look like pre-injury DG in 10 games. I recognize that it is going to be a process.

                        However, there is a big difference between Rose who is tasked to play 33+ MPG out of the gate and do everything offensively with Granger who will only be tasked to play 30 MPG at most (and I'm guessing 25 MPG is a better estimate) and just provide spot up shooting and defense.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                          I look forward to having Granger back in a week or two.
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Here is the root of it all. I don't want to lose home court. I don't think the Pacers advance without it.

                            Granger shouldn't be relied upon, either early or late in this season...not when you can instead rely on Lance. You only have so many chances. Look at the Colts. They won it all after many years of futility in the playoffs...but only once. Look at Chicago right now. An injured player relied upon does impact the team. Perhaps not as much as Rose but it will still matter. It's too important that our key players are healthy both early and late in the season.
                            So you would rather not play Granger and hope Lance doesn't injure himself, than have both Granger and Lance play in case one of them injuries himself. Again just absolutely great logic there. Make an argument against relying on a single player then say you want to rely on a single player.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              I like Frank a whole lot. But you have to take some of his statements with a grain of salt. He is attempting to manage egos and keep chemistry together. So he spends a lot of time stroking and "saying the right thing". There is indeed a difference between the wing players. Look at DWade and LeBron. You don't guard them with the same type of player.
                              The Heat play a completely different type of basketball than we do. Their offensive sets have nothing to do with ours. The Heat are a PnR-heavy team and we are a screen-heavy power-post team. It's just a different kind of basketball.

                              In our team there is no difference between SG and SF. When you see our team out there can you differentiate between who is playing SG and who is playing SF? If you can then answer the:

                              When we play Solomon Hill and Orlando Johnson together who is the SG and who is the SF?

                              When Lance is in the game with Orlando Johnson who is playing SG and who is playing SF?

                              When Lance is in the game with Solomon Hill who is playing SG and who is playing SF?
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Look at DWade and LeBron. You don't guard them with the same type of player.
                                Of course they're different. Paul and Danny are different. Paul and Lance are different. That's not what Frank is saying.

                                Frank is saying that in the offensive system the Pacers run, there's no difference between the 2 and the 3. The wings are interchangeable. So if Danny and Paul are on the floor together, they're both playing "wing." One isn't the 3 and the other isn't the 2. Same thing if Lance and Danny are out there, or Lance and Paul. They all play the same position.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X