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

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Everybody does it Hicks, you do it by calling Lance "good Lance" and "bad Lance", eleazar does it by calling Paul George "a diva" and "Paul George problem", everybody has done it before with Tinsley, JO, Foster or whoever it's life and that happens.
    Criticizing the crap out of someone that hasnt even been able to play due to injury....makes sense...

    At least now you should have actual play to criticize...and boy...i can only imagine how thats gonna be the next few months as he comes back....joy joy...
    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      I don't know about the rest of you. Screw the debates. I'm just flat out excited to see Danny playing and healthy again! Fingers crossed... We'll have to hope and see if he brings something to the table tonight. He might get one of those blocks and steals he tends to get with that ridiculous wingspan people have seemly forgot about.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Everybody does it Hicks, you do it by calling Lance "good Lance" and "bad Lance", eleazar does it by calling Paul George "a diva" and "Paul George problem", everybody has done it before with Tinsley, JO, Foster or whoever it's life and that happens.
        I'll never understand the desire some have to say only bad things about a player or team they are a fan of. I don't understand it.

        In other words, some posters seem to only talk about what's wrong, never celebrating what's right.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I'll never understand the desire some have to say only bad things about a player or team they are a fan of. I don't understand it.

          In other words, some posters seem to only talk about what's wrong, never celebrating what's right.
          I don't know who are this posters you are talking about because I have said a lot of positives things about DG for years, even called him a superstar at some point lol


          edit: Oh yeah I also said at the time that I would not have traded him for Melo, that is more than positive.
          Last edited by vnzla81; 12-20-2013, 07:18 PM.
          @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 was a horrible chucker for the majority of the season and a good player for like 2 months, people called it "he always starts slow reason why he is chucking it at a low percentage", I remember that he had the lowest shooting percentage in the NBA for a long time that year.

            Lets note that I called him superstar for about a month when he was able to pick it up and was killing teams(but he was a chucker for longer than that).
            That year was the lockout season that had a lot of people starting out slow including Monta Ellis. The logical posters added that into the equation when considering the condensed schedule and still implementing a new offensive philosophy with a number of new players being brought in and very little to no training camp and preseason games. This is why the league average TS% was also lower that year as well but Danny still was at that level or better.

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I'll never understand the desire some have to say only bad things about a player or team they are a fan of. I don't understand it.

              In other words, some posters seem to only talk about what's wrong, never celebrating what's right.
              I'm actually a Granger fan, yet I'm labeled a hater around these parts. I love his shooting ability and his toughness. But I am not blind to the rest of his game. Yet I'm supposedly a hater because of the criticism.

              Perhaps it's because I am pessimistic about his return. But why shouldn't I be pessimistic after watching a decade of knee issues with JO and JBender? Tell me how much money was wasted on those guys.

              Just because I think his ability to pass, dribble and defend are at best average in the NBA I am labeled a Granger hater. But I hardly ever get an argument back on the points.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                I wouldnt say posting Granger can't dribble, pass or defend as describing his abilities as NBA average... That's why you come across as a hater. I know you're not. I know vnzla is not.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  I wouldnt say posting Granger can't dribble, pass or defend as describing his abilities as NBA average... That's why you come across as a hater. I know you're not. I know vnzla is not.
                  I think his ability to dribble, for a starting small forward, is below average in the league. His ability to pass (which is extremely important for a wing) is at best average for a starting small forward. His defense is probably average for a small forward. It would be above average if he had stamina and/or showed the type of intensity you see from Iggy or Deng. He also gets burned on D at times because he's not paying attention. It's not his thing. He's just not naturally interested or motivated on defense...and it shows. Instead, Granger likes to shoot which he does that very, very well.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    I was thinking, does Danny Granger playing mean less shots for Scola? I want Scola taking as many shots as possible
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      I was thinking, does Danny Granger playing mean less shots for Scola? I want Scola taking as many shots as possible
                      Nope...it means less playing time for OJ/Solo/Butler/Copeland.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Let's just drop it now. It's almost time, can't we all just be excited now for the guy! Let's be critics after, but for now I'm ****ing pumped up for the guy. Regardless of what we think we are all hopeful he can contribute, bottom line.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          I was trying to avoid actually posting cause I absolutely hate when people misrepresent reality in order to make their opinion seem valid. So I am going to make some corrections.


                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          Are we really comparing a prime Danny to a 22 year old player in his first year as the go to guy? Danny needed a super human like 6-8 weeks towards the end of the season to get his numbers up to where they were. He was pretty bad for most of that season.

                          Please tell how Danny evolved his game with Vogel in charge, I'm interested in that.
                          So in other words Danny was superhuman for half the season, and terrible for the other half. It was a shortened season 6-8 weeks was half the season. Also Danny and Paul's progress in scoring in their first 4 seasons mirror each other extremely closely. Years in the NBA tend to be more consistent in indicating development than years of age.

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          This argument is silly to me. Paul makes passes that Danny can't even see. High assist guys always turn the ball over a lot because they sometimes make passes that are risky. The fact that their turnover rate is similar but Paul doubles his assist totals is telling. Danny simply doesn't risk passes because he often doesn't see them. I'm not saying he never passes but that lack of vision is a detriment to his teammates at times. There's no double standard.
                          Their turnover rates are not similar. Danny's has ranged from 9.3 - 12.8, while Paul's has ranged from 12.1 - 15.2. For a career Granger is at 11%, Paul is at 14.2%. That is a big difference. We are talking about Paul turning it over 25% to 33% more often than Danny. Also is it necessarily a lack of vision, or maybe it is Danny understanding he doesn't have the skill to make those passes so he smartly doesn't make them. Part of being a good/great player is recognizing your weaknesses, and playing in a way to minimize your weaknesses. It is smart basketball. Something Paul still needs to learn.

                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          Still - how does that make him the best player for those games ?? SO, LeBron guarded him and shut him down. He guarded LeBron and got lit up.

                          Maybe I'm missing something.
                          He was the best player on the team easily. He didn't start the series shooting well but he played better each game (shot over 40% in 4 of 6 games, the first game where he went 1-10 really hurts his average, and 1-10 from three in the first 2 games, from game 3 on he shot well) until Lebron took him out of game 5. I also don't think it is surprising that game 5 was easily Lebron's best game. In the 5 games Granger played from start to finish Lebron's best shooting night was 52.2 (game 6 after Danny was gimped), and he was 1-17 from 3-point land. In game 5 Lebron shot 61.5%, and was 2-4 from 3. He also had a +/- of +28 that game. The rest of the series he was +16 (he was a net 0 through the first 4 games). That was also the only game Lebron didn't play 40+ minutes. Also Lebron's averages last year, with Paul guarding him the majority of time, were extremely similar to Lebron's averages the year prior, with Granger guarding him the majority of the time. Only rebounds and 3P% were significantly different. The reality is, in the playoffs Paul didn't do any better of a job guarding Lebron as Danny did the year prior.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            I'm glad it's almost gametime.

                            Screw the debates. Everyone has valid points, but I've really missed seeing Danny out there. He's not my favorite player ever, but I know how badly he has surely wanted to get out there with these guys. I'm incredibly happy for him
                            Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              The reality is, in the playoffs Paul didn't do any better of a job guarding Lebron as Danny did the year prior.
                              That may or may not be true. But I would hate to have seen a 22 year old Granger (who happened to still be in New Mexico) attempting to guard a prime LeBron James.

                              Let's try to not compare Danny and Paul. LeBron knows the difference and it is vast.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                I like DG as a person and hope he plays well but he's the most overrated Pacer ever.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X