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

    Danny has gone from our best player to our seventh best player. Will he be OK with this severely reduced role?
    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 vnzla81 View Post
      Another quote that is shutting down the myth that he was a good defender, why would Vogel say that about a good defender?

      I'm expecting more myths to be shut down next year when he is not longer with the team.
      Uh...I dunno...maybe a little something to do with the fact hes coming back from knee surgery, hasnt played at a high level in almost 2 years and is in his 30's for starters....
      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        I think we have agreement on that point. Hibbert is the most important player on this team IMO...simply because he's the anchor of the defense. Paul, however, comes in a very close second.
        Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying as well.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Mm-hmm. He's good at holding his position on the low block; I recall him doing the best job of anyone in '12 when we'd play Atlanta and we needed to defend Smith posting up. Could come in handy vs. Detroit if he can still do it.
          And the likes of Lebron, Melo.etc...Paul is a premier perimeter defender...Hes not quite as effective with some of the bigger 3's that take him down on the block and try to overpower him...whereas Danny's build allows him to play more of the 3/4 guys....Danny was always best suited guarding 3's and 4's while Paul is much more of a 3,2,1 guy...thats why they work pretty well when theyre in together...
          The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            Danny has gone from our best player to our seventh best player. Will he be OK with this severely reduced role?
            Have you seen anything at all...anything...that would suggest he wouldnt? I swear I wonder if anyone listens to all of the players and all that is said all the time....I guess theres no drama or questions regarding all these issues inside the lockerroom so those outside have to try and create some...suddenly everyone takes on a national enquirer approach...

            The only questions that rationally exist are just how good and effective Danny will actually be once he is fully healthy and kicks off all the rust...and whether he will be able to stay that way...
            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              To put Granger in the starting line up (now or 2 months ago), the same questions would need to be answered now or in the beginning.How would Lance react to a demotion?
              At the beginning of the season he said that he was exhited about the opportunity to lead the bench. I think that Lance wants to have the ball in his hands and thus he would embrace that role.


              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              What happens to chemistry?
              It would still be amazing. This team has never had bad chemistry under Vogel. Our starting 5 kicked *** with Granger in 11-12 and it still kicked *** with Lance in 12-13.

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Do you really want to re-sign an aging Granger or re-sign a young and promising Lance who can grow and compete for championships with Paul George.
              How is that relevant with who you're starting? Before the season I'd certainly re-sign Lance but I might starter Granger for tactical reasons.

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Who closes out games? IMO, it should be the starter.
              You have every right to believe that it should be the starter but several coaches disagree with you. Harden wasn't a starter in OKC but he consistently closed out games. Popovich does not start Ginobili but he is always there in crunch time.

              Who closes out games would probably depend on the game and what we need out of our players.


              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              What happens if Granger goes down at the wrong time and disrupts the starting unit?
              What happens if Hibbert goes down at the wrong time and disrupts the starting unit?

              What happens if West goes down at the wrong time and disrupts the starting unit?

              What happens if PG goes down at the wrong time and disrupts the starting unit?

              What happens if Lance goes down at the wrong time and disrupts the starting unit?

              What happens if Hill goes down at the wrong time and disrupts the starting unit?

              Serious injuries to an important team member suck.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Vogel is clearly unsure how Danny will defend. That's quite natural given the circumstances and is an example of the kind of healthy skepticism there should be at this point.
                I agree with what Vogel said but what Vnzla said is nowhere close to "healthy skepticism".
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                  How will Danny react to being the second best player off the bench? Before the season, it was assumed that Danny would be our primary scorer off the bench. Scola is now that guy
                  We don't know this for sure. Danny could end up scoring more than Scola. We will see. It is certainly great to have two very capable scorers off the bench, though.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Really? Go read the first few pages of this thread again.
                    This thread was originally the "Granger to resume practice thread" so I don't consider it the definitive source on Granger discussions back into the preseason.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      One of the things with DG is his size. Off the bench they do not have someone like him. He knows who to pass to for an assist.
                      He knows where to be on defense.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Mm-hmm. He's good at holding his position on the low block; I recall him doing the best job of anyone in '12 when we'd play Atlanta and we needed to defend Smith posting up. Could come in handy vs. Detroit if he can still do it.
                        And Joe Johnson. And Kawhi. And Dudley. And Melo. And Parsons.

                        I am not expecting perfection. But we need low post defense against periemeter players besides George. Lance is good, but even Joe Johnson destroyed him on the block. I was surprised that when we put Lance on Lebron they didn't go to the post with Lebron. In fact that alone is why Spoelstra is a great coach. The Heat pressured our defense most when they put Lebron in the post.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Lance is always the first one subbed out. Then West and Hill. PG and Roy usually play the entire first
                          You're absolutely right. I guess I was thinking about last year when Roy and West didn't usually run the entire 1st quarter. Now Lance is normally the first one out so he can run with the 2nd unit. That should still make Danny the 1st guy off the bench. Works out just right, eh? Feel a little sad for whomever is guarding Lance and then sees PG moving to the 2.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                            You're absolutely right. I guess I was thinking about last year when Roy and West didn't usually run the entire 1st quarter. Now Lance is normally the first one out so he can run with the 2nd unit. That should still make Danny the 1st guy off the bench. Works out just right, eh? Feel a little sad for whomever is guarding Lance and then sees PG moving to the 2.
                            Actually Danny will play the role of a 2-guard on the offense, while PG plays the role of the SF, switches around on defense, as DG is too slow to guard 2s.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              How will Danny react to being the second best player off the bench? Before the season, it was assumed that Danny would be our primary scorer off the bench. Scola is now that guy

                              If he can stay healthy for very long Granger will be the best player off the bench and our second best scorer. A healthy Granger is a better player then Scola. Nice combination though. I want that from Granger and I don't think from your past quotes that you do. However, it doesn't matter what we want. The if remains for Granger right now but beyond that, in time the performanc of Lance, Scola and Granger will dictate their place in the offense.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                To use Vogel's comment on Danny's defensive abilities dictating his minutes moving forward as being indicative of whether or not Danny has ever been a solid or good defender is quite possibly some of the poorest (lazy?) logic I've witnessed. Of course Vogel i concerned about player X's ability to play defense after playing 5 games in 2 years coming off a major injury on wrong side of 30…..a lateral quickness loss is expected without an injury as one advances into their 30s much less an injury and lack of game legs…..this kind of blind useless logic and grasping for bits of dialogue to further an obsessive agenda is not only useless but laughable.

                                I don't know what kind of defender Danny can be moving forward. Only time will tell as I think Vogel was getting at, but if you look back on Danny's first few seasons in the league he showed great promise as a defender…something that wained as we became the apple of obriens eye at which point he was relied very heavily on as almost the sole offensive weapon….it doesn't give him a complete pass on the decline but certainly an explanation with a change in team identity. regardless….the logic I am referring to is bunk.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X