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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Oh and yes he should obviously come off the bench, me bringing up his 2009 season is in no way, shape, or form an endorsement for him to start or even play more than 20 minutes a game.


    Comment


    • Re: BREAKING NEWS: DG has called himself a chucker

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Roy, Paul, Lance and David West are all better than Granger. They are so good they are making George Hill get heat around here. We have great players, not just good. This is not the JOb era when Granger is compared to Josh McRoberts, Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy. I can assure you that David West would look like a stud with that group too.

      Edit: Seriously, one can argue that Lance isn't as good because he's not matured yet. But who would get paid more on the open market? Paul or Danny? Roy or Danny? DWest or Danny? DWest used to give us fits and easily matched Danny in those games as a Hornet.
      You mean the David West who had CP3 at point guard and Tyson Chandler at center? I mean as long as we're talking about 5 man lineups.

      I mean I always think it is easier to play with good players on my team than with bad players.


      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        No, danny Granger only had good numbers because he had such bad teammates. Forget Chris Paul making the game easier on David West. And having to play against the likes of Troy Murphy in the post while Danny got doubled.

        I don't know why danny even commanded any defensive pressure. He cant dribble or pass. The guy just needs to stand with his hands up and danny is useless.

        Comment


        • Re: BREAKING NEWS: DG has called himself a chucker

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Two players' stats both from their fourth season in the NBA

          Player A
          25.8 PPG 5.1 RPG 2.7 APG 1.4 BPG 1.0 SPG 44.7% FG 40.4% 3PT 87.8% FT 36.2 MPG
          Player B
          23.8 PPG 5.8 RPG 3.6 APG .3 BPG 2.0 SPG 46.1% FG 40.6% 3PT 85.8% FT 37.1 MPG

          Player A is Danny Granger.
          Player B is Paul George.

          Look, I'm really not trying to turn this into a debate between the two of them because at this point Paul is the superior player by a good margin, but this comment that Danny was just a "chucker" is a bit silly. His year 4 season was every bit as impressive statistically as what Paul is doing.

          You know what the difference was and is? Do any of you remember our most used 5 man lineup that year? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Here I'll remind you

          TJ Ford
          Marquis Daniels
          Danny Granger
          Troy Murphy
          Rasho Nesterovic

          compare that to

          George Hill
          Lance Stephenson
          Paul George
          David West
          Roy Hibbert

          So yeah 2009 Danny Granger was a fantastic player, no he was not the defender Paul is, but dude was more than just a chucker. Just because he got hurt and also aged doesn't mean we should forget what he was able to do just so we can have a nice narrative. Because remember we have no idea what the future holds for Paul yet.
          Paul's season this year is far more impressive. Granger racked up numbers on bad teams over the years. Just because he did that, does not mean those numbers weren't very much inflated especially in a JOb style offense.
          Heck, Troy Murphy went from averaging 14.6 to 3.6ppg...right after leaving Indy. It's a known fact when players move to better teams their numbers almost always drop dramatically. The same would be true for Danny so Paul's numbers are unbelievable.

          In fact, there were times when Marquis Daniels seemed to be our best player at times. Also, what about the time when people thought Mike Dunleavy should have an all-star nod because he was pretty darn close to as good as Granger? These things did happen and while Granger became a bit better later, the difference isn't that great. I vividly recall games when DWest seemed like the better player and in fact he is.

          Edit: don't take my word for it. Mark Boyle said Lance is more talented didn't he? I think Mark knows a bit about the team.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Oh and yes he should obviously come off the bench, me bringing up his 2009 season is in no way, shape, or form an endorsement for him to start or even play more than 20 minutes a game.
            He said it himself that he was a chucker not sure why you guys are getting upset it is the true, him saying it should put an stop to the overreaction at the words "chucker" and "Danny" on the same sentence(at least I hope).
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              He said it himself that he was a chucker not sure why you guys are getting upset it is the true, him saying it should put an stop to the overreaction at the words "chucker" and "Danny" on the same sentence(at least I hope).
              Show me the quote where he said chucker. Not broussards words.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Just because a player is more talented does not mean his better. Larry Bird has said Lance has been the most talented player on the roster since he was drafted. Is Lance our best player? Nope. Not even close

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  Just because a player is more talented does not mean his better. Larry Bird has said Lance has been the most talented player on the roster since he was drafted. Is Lance our best player? Nope. Not even close
                  Agreed on that point. It's all a matter of meeting one's potential. Danny maximized his potential as a Pacer. You really have to respect him and his work ethic. I'm glad he's coming back. But you could even see it his last full season. Even surrounded by young, albeit talented, players his numbers dropped significantly. He's not a 20ppg scorer on an above .500 team. He's a very good player who could start on a championship team but he's at best #3 on that team. He's Batman on JOb's team. Robin on a .500 team. ...and the Joker on a champion.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Agreed on that point. It's all a matter of meeting one's potential. Danny maximized his potential as a Pacer. You really have to respect him and his work ethic. I'm glad he's coming back. But you could even see it his last full season. Even surrounded by young, albeit talented, players his numbers dropped significantly. He's not a 20ppg scorer on an above .500 team. He's a very good player who could start on a championship team but he's at best #3 on that team. He's Batman on JOb's team. Robin on a .500 team. ...and the Joker on a champion.
                    that is really funny lol
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      You're right it is much harder to put up good stats surrounded by George Hill, Lance Stephenson, David West, and Roy Hibbert. I'm just going to see myself out because I really don't feel like arguing about two of my all time favorite Pacers who both happened to be fantastic players but in two completely different situations. If you can't see how the situations are completely different than I am not going to be able to convince you of it.

                      Also, yes Danny is the joker on a champion. Good job, great analogy really in depth stuff.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        The local news in Fort Wayne just said he was playing Friday. I sure hope he can stay healthy.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Good God....both sides have been arguing the same old points for the last year. Until he actually steps on the court and does something and shakes off whatever rust he has......none of us know how well or poorly he's going to do until he levels off and plays at whatever level ( whether it be 75% of his pre-2009 form or a complete shell of his former self ).

                          Can we re-visit this Granger discussion in a month? I fully expect for him to have A LOT of rust on Granger that he will need to shake off for the next couple of weeks. If he still looks no better than Butler/OJ/Solo/Copeland by mid-January....then I am willing to concede that he's just a huge Expiring contract and be ultimately disappointed.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 12-20-2013, 02:20 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: BREAKING NEWS: DG has called himself a chucker

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Two players' stats both from their fourth season in the NBA

                            Player A
                            25.8 PPG 5.1 RPG 2.7 APG 1.4 BPG 1.0 SPG 44.7% FG 40.4% 3PT 87.8% FT 36.2 MPG
                            Player B
                            23.8 PPG 5.8 RPG 3.6 APG .3 BPG 2.0 SPG 46.1% FG 40.6% 3PT 85.8% FT 37.1 MPG

                            Player A is Danny Granger.
                            Player B is Paul George.
                            As a guy who really likes both players, I'm kinda shocked that Danny's assist numbers are as close to PG's as they are. Danny had 2.7 APG, Paul had 3.6 APG?

                            Who the heck was Danny passing to?
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: BREAKING NEWS: DG has called himself a chucker

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              As a guy who really likes both players, I'm kinda shocked that Danny's assist numbers are as close to PG's as they are. Danny had 2.7 APG, Paul had 3.6 APG?

                              Who the heck was Danny passing to?
                              How soon we forget Quisy for Threesy.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Seems most here have truly forgotten just how good Danny Granger was. Dunno if thats because they werent really following that close back then or just have selective memory but either way its pretty sad. In the first 15 or 20 games this year Paul played on a similar level as Danny did his best season. We will see if Paul can maintain such throughout the season, but hes definitely hit a rougher patch the last few games, albeit against some pretty stiff competition. Danny was an allstar on a bad team, something we all know is not the easiest thing to do as guys from the better teams are most often given the nods. He was just that good. How good will he be coming back, who knows for certain, but seems most are resigned to thinking what most of the league is hoping-he will be nothing like his former self. Otherwise, its gonna be borderline unfair to the other teams if he comes back and is anything resembling his former self.
                                The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X