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

  • #76
    Re: Granger out for three weeks

    Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    We're fine w/o Granger. We were fine without Granger last year and the team is expected to have improved greatly over the offseason, between player development and the improved bench. Anyone who was seriously counting on him being a significant contributor was in lala land. Anything he gives the team is a bonus, like last year. And like last year the Pacers will be good with or without him.

    At least this should put to rest the ridiculous idea that Lance should be coming off the bench.
    This is where I stand as well. As much as I love watching him play, Danny is no longer an integral part of the team. I actually think losing C J Watson would be a bigger loss at this point.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Granger out for three weeks

      The biggest impact from this that I possibly see, is bigger minutes early for PG. Those who were hoping he might slip out of All NBA radar and save us some dough, I don't think there's any chance of that happening now. I expect him to explode out of the gate.


      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Granger out for three weeks

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Huh?
        I objected to you trying to use Gerald Green, SHill's status of a rookie as proof that SHill can't or won't do something. I've said this multiple times, about this discussion and about Danny's future health, you're free to have your opinion, but if you're going to use faulty logic, I'm going to point it out.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Granger out for three weeks

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Thankfully these sorts of debates will be resolved very shortly. If it's the scheme that makes the players, then I fully expect to see Hill get quite a few minutes this season since he is young and obviously has the physical tools to excel. If he doesn't get a lot of minutes, then that will tell us that not just anyone can immediately be plugged into the system and produce to the standards of a team that is competing to be the best in the NBA.
          It doesn't have to be Hill that steps up and receives the playing time. It could be OJ, we could play Cope at the 3 more, or maybe Rasul Butler gets some minutes. We have options and Vogel will put the player out there that will produce the best.

          I think the point that was trying to be made initially was that it wouldn't be too difficult for a player to be our 5th starter. Lance ended up being a starter because Gerald Green couldn't knock down wide open shots, stop turning the ball over, or play enough defense to compensate for his ineffectiveness offensively. Lance's production was pretty much the same as a starter or as the 6th man last year. The only big difference was his usage rate, which was much higher when he was our primary ball handler coming off the bench as opposed to the 5th option offensively as a starter. Nuntius (the original poster) believes that role would benefit Lance tremendously.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Granger out for three weeks

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I objected to you trying to use Gerald Green, SHill's status of a rookie as proof that SHill can't or won't do something.

            We have no proof of anything with SHill because he hasn't played in real games. A purpose of a sports message board is for people to give predictions. I think that Gerald Green's benching shows that not just any guy can be plugged in and play within our defensive system. Solo is a late round rookie, and it's beyond rare for a late round rookie to start on one of the best teams in the NBA. Finally, we had a coach last year who gave our first round pick ZERO opportunity to prove anything. I'm not comparing Plumlee to Solo, but I think it's fair to say that our coach isn't going to let a rookie go out there and play unless they can play like a vet. Because of all of this, it's my prediction that we won't see much of Solo this year, and certainly won't see him anywhere near a starting role. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I will be glad to admit it because that would mean that the Pacers drafted a complete steal.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Granger out for three weeks

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I think that Gerald Green's benching shows that not just any guy can be plugged in and play within our defensive system. .
              And Lance being plugged in shows that it can be done! Except you think it doesn't, so we're left with you using one piece of evidence as support while dismissing another piece, all because the point you use backs up the outcome you predict.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Granger out for three weeks

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                And Lance being plugged in shows that it can be done! Except you think it doesn't, so we're left with you using one piece of evidence as support while dismissing another piece, all because the point you use backs up the outcome you predict.
                So I guess you feel comfortable in predicting that Solo will play big minutes this season and be a serious threat to Lance's starting job?

                These are sports predictions, not a scientific theorem. Find me a sports prediction that doesn't have holes or a counter debate. If everything was absolute, then we'd all become millionaires by betting on sports in Vegas.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-28-2013, 01:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Granger out for three weeks

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  So I guess you feel comfortable in predicting that Solo will play big minutes this season and be a serious threat to Lance's starting job?
                  I thought I've made it perfectly clear I'm not predicting anything.

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  These are sports predictions, not a scientific theorem. Find me a sports prediction that doesn't have holes or a counter debate? If everything was absolute, then we'd all become millionaires by betting on sports in Vegas.
                  There's a difference between saying "I think it will rain" and saying "I think it will rain because I had a wet fart last night." Both predict the same exact things, but yet one is vastly different that the other. I understand thinking Solo might not fit in, but thinking he won't simply because Gerald Green didn't, is the equivalant to a wet fart.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Granger out for three weeks

                    So the guy "tweaked" his back in training camp not letting him practice and now he is out for almost a month because of a leg injury after 3 games, yeah there is nothing to see here we should all worry about "injury prone" George Hill....
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Granger out for three weeks

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Look, I know you think it's his knee, but I'll just point this out. If Danny has a grade II strain, he is actually exactly right on for typical healing. Check it out.

                      http://orthopedics.about.com/od/spra...calfstrain.htm

                      • Grade II Calf Strain: Moderate discomfort with walking, and limited ability to perform activities, such as running and jumping; may have swelling and bruising associated. (Right now we've been told he can't run, so that is why I am assuming Grade II, perhaps it was originally grade I, but then he played on it and it escalated to grade II)


                      Calf Strain Healing Time

                      The length of time needed for healing a calf strain depends on the severity of the injury. A typical grade I calf strain will heal in 7 to 10 days, a grade II injury within about 4 to 6 weeks, and a grade III calf strain within about 3 months. The most common injury is a grade II calf strain that takes about 6 weeks for complete healing.

                      Just saying....I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but just giving the facts on the injury. I know most of us hear strain and think about that time you pulled it reaching for something, but it's usually more severe than that. Especially if you do it during actual physical activity.





                      I know the facts, baby, oh so well
                      You're not the expert here 'cause I can tell
                      And if you think the truth will set me free
                      Don't you know you'll be in misery

                      They call me (Dr. Troll)
                      They call me Dr. Troll (calling Dr. Troll)
                      Other ideas just make me 'lol' (calling Dr. Troll)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Granger out for three weeks

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        So the guy "tweaked" his back in training camp not letting him practice and now he is out for almost a month because of a leg injury after 3 games, yeah there is nothing to see here we should all worry about "injury prone" George Hill....
                        And that's my point. Instead of using two minor injuries as proof that Danny needs to readjust to the rigors of the NBA, it's proof that he never will. Faulty logic, presented as fact, 101.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Granger out for three weeks

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I do think it could indirectly be from the injury though. As in he went from not playing to playing 30mpg. They didn't really give his body a chance to ease back into things, which can lead to such injuries.
                          Right, it may have been more probably due to him having to have NOT played ball that long.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Granger out for three weeks

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            I understand everyone's concern who is concerned that this will be a lingering issue. I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to be concerned. Heck, I'm a bit concerned myself, but at the very least the recovery schedule they are putting out there is not out of line if it is the calf. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
                            Yep.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Granger out for three weeks

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              What exactly do you want me to say?
                              I don't want you to say anything in particular, but it seems like that's what you're saying without coming right out and saying it directly.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Granger out for three weeks

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I thought I've made it perfectly clear I'm not predicting anything.



                                There's a difference between saying "I think it will rain" and saying "I think it will rain because I had a wet fart last night." Both predict the same exact things, but yet one is vastly different that the other. I understand thinking Solo might not fit in, but thinking he won't simply because Gerald Green didn't, is the equivalant to a wet fart.
                                I've listed multiple reasons that support why I think that Lance will start.

                                1) Lance started last year, was successful at it, the team went to Game 7 of the ECF's with him playing an important role, and the other four starters now have a year's worth of experience playing with him.

                                2) Late first round rookies rarely play huge minutes on elite teams like the Pacers, much less start for them. Also, we have a coach who clearly showed last year that he had no interest in letting Plumlee play some minutes and learn from mistakes, even in games where the Pacers were easily going to win. If you're a sloppy rookie, then Vogel doesn't have much use for you. I expect Solo to get more minutes than Plumlee, but in order for him to be a major rotational player, he's going to inevitably make mistakes. I don't see

                                3) My only point about Gerlald Green was that he showed us that not just anyone can come in and play within our defensive system. Now, it's certainly a reasonable counter point to say that Lance shows that it CAN be done, and I agree with that. Like I said, no sports prediction is a 100% air tight argument that is invincible to opposing debate. But you've blown the Gerald Green thing out of proportion. I just used him as an abstract figure to make a point, and it was just a tiny part of my argument. Why would Vogel start Solo and go through the growing pains of him learning with the starting unit when Lance already has a year's worth of expierience? Sure, he allowed Lance to do it last year, but that's because we had no other choice. Now that we do have an experienced choice in Lance, I don't see him going with anyone else.

                                No sports prediction is going to hold up against the scientific method, but I do feel as though my prediction is filled with reasonable enough evidence, and I'll gladly bet anyone on who plays more starters minutes between Lance and Solo.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-28-2013, 01:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X