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

Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

    Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
    The only team I saw in this thread that I think would even consider a trade for Danny, would maybe be the Lakers. They are really hurting for warm bodies at this point in the season. If Larry really wants to change the team(which I doubt seriously) we might do Granger and Scola for Pau Gasol. Pau could backup David and maybe Roy if needed. He can score and still has some defense. Lakers get 2 for one, both of which they can unload at the end of the season. Pacers get $19m in expiring and a better PF for scoring and size. However, unless Frank and Larry know something we haven't seen yet, Butler and Cope for the backup 3 is a little scary? These guys haven't even seen the floor for very much mop up duty this season. We might offer Ian as part of that trade if the Lakers would go for it. That just might leave enough Cap next year to retain Lance. IIRC we have 7.7 million in cap space after we let Danny walk at the end of the year if we keep Luis? That's not enough money for next year, but Larry has said over and over he's not worried about next year.
    I think this trade fits the immediate needs of both franchises, establishes flexibility for this summer for some retooling, and strengthens the Pacers on the interior.

    As Captain Piccard would say "Make it so."

    Comment


    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

      Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
      This is just a poor attempt at sarcasm, right? Right!?!? Are you confusing Zach Lowe with someone else by chance? You are entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion Zach Lowe is probably the best sports writer there is. Basketball for sure. I bet he gets hired for a front office gig sooner rather than later.
      Lowe is an X's and O's guy first and foremost. And that makes for a refreshing and interesting take on NBA journalism. He is probably the best in that regard, but the last thing I'd expect of him is an in-tune pulse of the league's trade scenarios. Maybe he got too big for his britches. "The Pacers have been actively shopping Danny Granger" is a recurrent and sadly safe topic in the shallow world of sports journalism.

      But sports journalist to front office? Surely you jest.

      Comment


      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

        Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
        just curious, where are you getting your bench stats from? how are you comparing our bench with that of other teams?

        i can compare our most-played bench lineup (watson-stephenson-granger-scola-mahinmi), with say, OKC's most-played bench (jackson-fisher-lamb-collison-adams), which would be considered an above average bench in the nba. (if you disagree, please feel free to substitute that of another team here.)

        all stats from 82games.

        http://www.82games.com/1314/1314IND2.HTM
        http://www.82games.com/1314/1314OKC2.HTM

        IND: 117 min, 1.03 off rating, 0.97 def rating, +10, 0.448 eFG, 0.458 eFGa, -2 FT differential, 54.5% reb rate, +1% T/O differential
        OKC: 110 min, 1.03 off rating, 1.00 def rating, +8, 0.386 eFG, 0.409 eFGa, -13 FT differential, 52.5% reb rate, +3 T/O differential

        the stats seem to show at the very least our bench is just as good or better than OKC's in quite a few areas.
        Excellent, thank you. Those numbers seemed fishy to me, but I hadn't decided how to fact-check them. Good work.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
          Upgrade or Depth? I don't understand all the Mahnimi hate overall on this board. What do we expect from a center who makes about the league average for backups. Not directed at this post per se but see it consistently.

          Bynum should have to earn those minutes. Mahnimni was never brought here to be an offensive weapon but his defense and rebounding has been very appreciated.

          Bynum is here for depth, the upgrade part has yet TBD.

          Sure Bynum will have to earn the spot, and if he plays like crap then it will go to Mahinmi. But Bynum's comments about backing up Roy make it pretty clear, IMO, that Bird and Vogel strongly implied to him that the backup spot is basically his to lose. I seriously doubt that Bynum would have come here to be a third stringer behind Ian Mahinmi when he could have gone a couple of other places and made an impact. He won't get paid by third stringer.

          Bynum is a very good rebounder. His per-36 rebounding rate with the Cavs was higher than Mahinmi's this season (9.5 vs. 7.3), and that's when he was playing his first games back from injury. Bird brought Bynum in because even a 50% Bynum is likely going to be a much better player than Mahinmi. Mahinmi simply cannot play offense and that will always hamper the second unit to an extent. Bynum's ability to score near the basket will add more options for our second unit. As long as Bynum is reasonably healthy, I think we can coach his defense to an acceptable level.

          Comment


          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

            Originally posted by Kemo View Post
            I think it would be a pretty low and crappy backhanded move for the Pacer's FO to do Danny like that....
            As much as DG33 has been loyal and stuck with us through thick and thin, and been given all assurances he's been given by the organization that they would stick by him......... IF they jettisoned him out before he got a chance to play for and get a ring with us, in the middle of possibly what is going to be the best season this organization has EVER had, I would lose ALL respect for Herb Simon and Bird .. and how they conduct business... And that is saying ALOT, considering I look up to Larry Bird as a basketball god in all facets of the game.. Plus he was my favorite player of all time...

            You just don't do someone like that....Business or not.....

            Now after this season is done, if a very reasonable contract can't be agreed upon when DG33 becomes a free agent, or if either/both parties decided to part ways..... then so be it... I would be sad to see him go ...
            The Pacers will have paid him more than $60 million over the last 5 years. They owe him nothing more.

            Comment


            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

              I personally hope we keep Danny, I think he will get better he was off for two years and he keeps looking better game by game.

              Comment


              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
                just curious, where are you getting your bench stats from? how are you comparing our bench with that of other teams?

                i can compare our most-played bench lineup (watson-stephenson-granger-scola-mahinmi), with say, OKC's most-played bench (jackson-fisher-lamb-collison-adams), which would be considered an above average bench in the nba. (if you disagree, please feel free to substitute that of another team here.)

                all stats from 82games.

                http://www.82games.com/1314/1314IND2.HTM
                http://www.82games.com/1314/1314OKC2.HTM

                IND: 117 min, 1.03 off rating, 0.97 def rating, +10, 0.448 eFG, 0.458 eFGa, -2 FT differential, 54.5% reb rate, +1% T/O differential
                OKC: 110 min, 1.03 off rating, 1.00 def rating, +8, 0.386 eFG, 0.409 eFGa, -13 FT differential, 52.5% reb rate, +3 T/O differential

                the stats seem to show at the very least our bench is just as good or better than OKC's in quite a few areas.
                Here is a bench stat that supports his claim.

                http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball.../7/diffeff/1-1

                Comment


                • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                  Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                  I think it would be a pretty low and crappy backhanded move for the Pacer's FO to do Danny like that....
                  As much as DG33 has been loyal and stuck with us through thick and thin, and been given all assurances he's been given by the organization that they would stick by him......... IF they jettisoned him out before he got a chance to play for and get a ring with us, in the middle of possibly what is going to be the best season this organization has EVER had, I would lose ALL respect for Herb Simon and Bird .. and how they conduct business... And that is saying ALOT, considering I look up to Larry Bird as a basketball god in all facets of the game.. Plus he was my favorite player of all time...

                  You just don't do someone like that....Business or not.....

                  Now after this season is done, if a very reasonable contract can't be agreed upon when DG33 becomes a free agent, or if either/both parties decided to part ways..... then so be it... I would be sad to see him go ...
                  With Birds comments about Danny not working hard in the off season I wonder how much the FO feels obligated to keep him. We see the model NBA player and they may see more of a JO behind the scenes.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                    Originally posted by KingGeorge_24 View Post
                    Why don't the Pacer try and go for a trade with the Wizards for Ariza? They are worried that they can't afford him anyways. Maybe add a third team in the deal that could get Wizards a back up PG.
                    Ariza's got a knee issue he's been battling all season. No thanks. Also, I heard last night during Kings/Cavs Deng has a tender achillies he's been dealing with. Not sure if I wanna trade for him now either. Even though Loul still dropped 22 on Sac.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                      How did this get to 7 pages and why people take this seriously is beyond me. We've been "actively shopping Granger" since 08-09. These threads come and go...
                      Originally posted by Piston Prince
                      Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                      "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                      Comment


                      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                        The Pacers will have paid him more than $60 million over the last 5 years. They owe him nothing more.
                        True. That having been said, trading the guy away on the eve of our (we hope) first championship after he was our bright spot and best player in the dark years before our resurgence would really suck for him and for I think most fans as well who care about such things. And I think the front office wouldn't like it, either.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          True. That having been said, trading the guy away on the eve of our (we hope) first championship after he was our bright spot and best player in the dark years before our resurgence would really suck for him and for I think most fans as well who care about such things. And I think the front office wouldn't like it, either.
                          Danny did say however when he returned, he'd understand if the team traded him, from a business standpoint.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                            Danny did say however when he returned, he'd understand if the team traded him, from a business standpoint.
                            Well that's what a good pro is supposed to say.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              True. That having been said, trading the guy away on the eve of our (we hope) first championship after he was our bright spot and best player in the dark years before our resurgence would really suck for him and for I think most fans as well who care about such things. And I think the front office wouldn't like it, either.
                              There are numerous reasons why trading him this season really make no sense, and why it almost certainly won't happen. Because he was a decent player on our bad teams, is definitely not a reason for it.

                              It's not a matter loyalty or disloyalty, just as it wasn't a matter of loyalty for Granger to play here through those lean years. He played because we paid him extremely well, and it was good business for him personally to do so. If there is a deal out there that makes us better in either the long or short terms, it would be bad business not to take it.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                                Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
                                Recent bench struggles? Are you implying our bench has been productive at any point during this season? They struggled early in the year we were the worst 2nd quarter team in the league the first few months of the season and why we were always down at half. Our bench effeciency rate is 25th, our bench def. efficiency is 16th, our bench FG percent is 25th in the league. I am not harping on recent struggles I am harping on season long struggles. I was willing to forgive the 2nd unit early in the season and chalk it up to chemistry issues and that the unit would work itself out, but we are now almost at the all-star break and the bench is still a bottom 5 bench in the league in statistically it simply is not producing.
                                Yes, I am implying that our bench has been a lot more productive at several points during the season than you're giving them credit for.

                                The bench looked great for the first month of Danny's return. From that Houston game in December 20 until the start of the WC trip in Golden State in January 20 the bench was a large positive for us. Yes, the bench has been largely mediocre after that but that doesn't mean that they didn't have good runs as a unit.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X