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 cdash View Post
    I am guessing Bird saw this coming, at least to a certain extent. This team, while publicly beating the drum of wanting the #1 seed, is in title or bust mode. I think Bird wants Danny to work through his kinks in the regular season and be a contributor in the playoffs--when we really need him.
    Can Danny get better as the year goes on, or is this as good as Danny will be? This is the question that could decide our championship
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      Scola is good in the post whenever its ISO. Luis has only one guy near him, and everybody else gets out of the way. He does have issues when he dribbles in traffic though.
      That I will agree with.

      Comment


      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
        Can Danny get better as the year goes on, or is this as good as Danny will be? This is the question that could decide our championship
        And it's a fair question; one I certainly don't have the answer to. I, personally, believe he will improve.

        Comment


        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

          Ah its that time of year again I see. Pacers trying to trade Granger according to "sources" What is this, the 4th straight year of this? Each year seeming more far fetched than the previous.

          Comment


          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            Can Danny get better as the year goes on, or is this as good as Danny will be? This is the question that could decide our championship
            I think that he gets better as the year goes on, but how much better is to be determined... And at this point, there are other questions that will determine if we meet our championship asperations...
            Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

            Comment


            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

              Originally posted by lolwuttermelons View Post
              Lowe is a hack, so I wouldn't read too much into it. ESPN pays anyone to say anything, as long as they say it ignorantly with confidence
              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.
              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

              Comment


              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                Butler has given us some really good minutes. He certainly deserves credit for that.

                However, I think that you (and not only you, several others do that as well) are letting the last few games to heavily influence your opinion about our bench.
                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.

                Comment


                • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                  I don't buy it. Nothing we could get for Danny without taking back long term salary makes any sense. If the Pacers could get a player like Deng without giving up anything else then I might see it but that won't happen. If a deal came up that was to good to be true then I could see Larry doing it but other then that I think there's a certain degree of loyalty from the Pacers franchise to Danny.
                  Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                    I don't buy it. Nothing we could get for Danny without taking back long term salary makes any sense. If the Pacers could get a player like Deng without giving up anything else then I might see it but that won't happen. If a deal came up that was to good to be true then I could see Larry doing it but other then that I think there's a certain degree of loyalty from the Pacers franchise to Danny.
                    Everything boils down to what the motivation that Bird has if they are considering moving Granger.

                    Is it to get back a better Player and/or prospects ( irregardless of the affect such Players would have on the long-term Salary Cap implications and/or dumping Copeland )?

                    or

                    Is it to dump Copeland to improve the 2014-2015 Salary Cap situation ( while hopefully getting back a Wingman that can help the Team in the short term )?

                    If it is the former ( see if we can improve the bench somehow by getting a better Player than Granger ), than I agree....it would be hard to get a better Player than Granger.

                    If it is the latter ( pure Salary Dump that includes Copeland ), if such a deal exists.........and the purpose is to clear 2014-2015 Salary.....then I can see Bird making such a move.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                      I dont see how Larry will simply trade Danny right now to clear a little more cap space next year... The only way that he would do that is if he gets back someone who is servicable, and I dont see anything that would make sense and be realistic... I think that if you dont get a clear upgrade, than trading Danny is a gamble that more than likely wont end in with a net plus for the Pacers...
                      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                        Originally posted by lolwuttermelons View Post
                        Lowe is a hack, so I wouldn't read too much into it. ESPN pays anyone to say anything, as long as they say it ignorantly with confidence
                        So wrong it's not even funny.

                        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.
                          Shortly after Granger came back, he had a period of I think 10 games where he scored in double figures efficiently in all but one game, during which the bench looked like the best bench in the league. The bench has been inconsistent this year, usually coinciding with how well Orlando and Granger are shooting. When they shot well, and Orlando did start off fairly decently, the bench looked decent or even great. When they don't it looks bad.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                            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.
                            Why you Grimpin?

                            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.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                                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 ...
                                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X