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 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.
    Gamble1 already posted the stats I was referring to so I won't again, thanks Gamble for that.

    Obviously the discrepancy in production is coming from Stephenson as the stats I am looking at would not add his production with that line-up while yours do. Which it is fair that you would add his production in those situations because he is the only starter that gets extended minutes with the bench. Still not sure how to feel about your stats versus the ones I've been following though. Do I look at the 5 man unit stats with Stephenson and feel relieved that it isn't as poor as my stats show and actually pretty solid, or do you still look at my stats and think our production from Player 6-14 (not going to count Bynum yet) is very poor and can still improve and thank god Stephenson is REALLY REALLY GOOD and plays with them.

    Comment


    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

      As was mentioned above, haven't the Pacers been "actively shopping" Danny for years now? This rumor appears once a year at least.

      I hope we don't trade him because I don't think we can get anything better for him. But if we trade him, I won't care. So long as if wouldn't lessen our ability to bring Lance back
      Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

      Comment


      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

        I just don't see how anyone gives up anything of value for Granger, especially considering the Pacers cannot take on bad contract. Gotta sign Lance.

        In that sense, I don't see Granger getting traded.

        I could see Cope/Scola/OJ getting traded. Possibly Hill/Ian in the offseason.
        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

        Comment


        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

          Just don't resign after the season. Problem solved
          Smothered Chicken!

          Comment


          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            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.
            No but with everything else equal (what we would get for him in a trade, etc.) it seems like you are looking at a talent wash or, at best, a small upgrade. At that point, things like loyalty and what he has meant to the franchise are enough to tip the scales for me.

            If there was a deal out there that clearly made us a better team and gave us a better chance at the title, I would be fine with moving him. But the types of deals that are realistic and bantied about in here...ehh, only one of them I would be happy with (Danny+fillers for Deng). Past that, I'd just as soon keep him.

            Comment


            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              No but with everything else equal (what we would get for him in a trade, etc.) it seems like you are looking at a talent wash or, at best, a small upgrade. At that point, things like loyalty and what he has meant to the franchise are enough to tip the scales for me.

              If there was a deal out there that clearly made us a better team and gave us a better chance at the title, I would be fine with moving him. But the types of deals that are realistic and bantied about in here...ehh, only one of them I would be happy with (Danny+fillers for Deng). Past that, I'd just as soon keep him.
              What if it's a deal that like Granger/Copeland for Gordon/Sessions/1st round pick? It doesn't help us at all this year, but it nets us an extra $4 million or so in cap space to re-sign Lance this summer.

              I wouldn't do it personally, because I'd rather just push our cards in, play the season out, and try to win the title this year with what we have. But that is the kind of move that could definitely help us going forward. Loyalty to Granger, should have no bearing on the decision making process.

              Comment


              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                What if it's a deal that like Granger/Copeland for Gordon/Sessions/1st round pick? It doesn't help us at all this year, but it nets us an extra $4 million or so in cap space to re-sign Lance this summer.

                I wouldn't do it personally, because I'd rather just push our cards in, play the season out, and try to win the title this year with what we have. But that is the kind of move that could definitely help us going forward. Loyalty to Granger, should have no bearing on the decision making process.
                I don't want to make any deals that could possibly disrupt our chances at a title this year, and like you said, I don't think that deal helps us win a title.

                You don't get many chances to win titles in the NBA. We have a golden opportunity this year to bring a championship to Indiana, and I think the team currently assembled can do that. Messing with team chemistry and making us weaker/smaller on the wing (that's my opinion) doesn't interest me. Not for a mid first round pick and extra cap space to lock up Lance. You worry about Lance in the offseason. You gun for a title now.

                Comment


                • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                  I have to admit to being intrigued by the idea of sending Danny and Orlando (and if they'd be interested, Copeland) to Cleveland to bring in Deng. Clearly a big boost to our bench, saves us money this summer, and it also means we could theoretically make Deng our plan B if Lance gets an offer too rich for our blood. He'd be our free agent now, and thus we could offer him a fair contract if we chose to let Lance get overpaid by someone else. You can absolutely play him with Paul George.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I have to admit to being intrigued by the idea of sending Danny and Orlando (and if they'd be interested, Copeland) to Cleveland to bring in Deng. Clearly a big boost to our bench, saves us money this summer, and it also means we could theoretically make Deng our plan B if Lance gets an offer too rich for our blood. He'd be our free agent now, and thus we could offer him a fair contract if we chose to let Lance get overpaid by someone else. You can absolutely play him with Paul George.
                    That would be a move that would be of serious interest to me.
                    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                      This trade makes us better for the championship run....

                      Pacers trade Solomon Hill, Luis Scola, Copeland, Granger
                      Lakers trade Nick Young, Pau Gasol, Wesley Johnson, Jodie Meeks
                      Cavs trade Dion Waiters, CJ Miles


                      Pacers acquire CJ Miles, Nick Young, Pau Gasol
                      Lakers acquire Waiters, Granger, Scola, Solo
                      Cavs acquire Wesley Johnson, Jodie Meeks, Copeland




                      A Waiters/Kobe back court would be deadly. Also, I think Waiters could mature as a player with vets like Kobe and Scola around him. Danny is an expiring. Solo is a good young piece.


                      Cavs need some insurance in case Deng splits. Meeks and Johnson are good to have in case he does. They also get a stretch 4 in Copeland.


                      Pacers bench now would be...


                      Pau
                      Nick
                      Bynum
                      CJ Miles
                      CJ Watson

                      Comment


                      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                        Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                        That would be a move that would be of serious interest to me.
                        The ball wouldn't move though. No one to push the ball like Lance does. I'd actually be in favor of, in a scenario like that..trading George Hill to a cap friendly team. And taking back young talent on cheap deals. To fill out the bench. And then re-signing Lance. For example, sending GH to the Sixers for Tony Wroten. Who is at 1 million + for 3 years. Versus GH who is at 8 million for 3 years.


                        West
                        Deng
                        Hibbert
                        George
                        Lance
                        Last edited by Grimp; 02-12-2014, 04:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          This trade makes us better for the championship run....

                          Pacers trade Solomon Hill, Luis Scola, Copeland, Granger
                          Lakers trade Nick Young, Pau Gasol, Wesley Johnson, Jodie Meeks
                          Cavs trade Dion Waiters, CJ Miles


                          Pacers acquire CJ Miles, Nick Young, Pau Gasol
                          Lakers acquire Waiters, Granger, Scola, Solo
                          Cavs acquire Wesley Johnson, Jodie Meeks, Copeland




                          A Waiters/Kobe back court would be deadly. Also, I think Waiters could mature as a player with vets like Kobe and Scola around him. Danny is an expiring. Solo is a good young piece.


                          Cavs need some insurance in case Deng splits. Meeks and Johnson are good to have in case he does. They also get a stretch 4 in Copeland.


                          Pacers bench now would be...


                          Pau
                          Nick
                          Bynum
                          CJ Miles
                          CJ Watson
                          Id rather not trade the majority of our bench, one of the best things about our bench is our chemistry, and trading 4 players doesn't really help that. Plus I like Solomon Hill a lot as a future piece, he will likely replace Danny next season

                          Comment


                          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                            Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                            Id rather not trade the majority of our bench, one of the best things about our bench is our chemistry, and trading 4 players doesn't really help that. Plus I like Solomon Hill a lot as a future piece, he will likely replace Danny next season



                            Noted. Here's a trade that guts our bench a bit less....




                            Pacers trade: Scola, Granger,
                            Lakers trade: Pau, Nick Young, Jodie Meeks, Steve Nash, Jordan Hill, and Wesley Johnson
                            Raptors trade: Kyle Lowry, Steve Novak




                            Pacers acquire Jodie Meeks and Pau Gasol

                            Lakers acquire Lowry, Novak, Granger, Scola

                            Raptors acquire Nick Young, Jordan Hill, Wesley Johnson, Steve Nash






                            Indiana's bench gets better.


                            Pau
                            Cope
                            Bynum
                            Meeks
                            CJ



                            Lakers need healthy bodies right now. Scola, Novak, Granger, and Lowry are all healthy. Plus, a Lowry/Kobe backcourt could attract some free agents to L.A. You could be seeing a Love/Lowry/Bryant team soon.


                            Jordan Hill + Nick Young are a good return for Kyle Lowry. Plus, Wesley Johnson who is a good young player and has played beyond his potential in a banged up Lakers squad this season. And as for Steve Nash, he gets to finish his career in Canada where he was born. He can back up Vasquez. Or start if he's healthy enough.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                              This has devolved into random trade speculation thread now.

                              summary of he facts: If the Pacers want to re-sign Lance, they need to add no salary in trade for next year or beyond. Thus any trade would be for an equally big, if not bigger, expiring contract. No reasonable possibilities exist, to my knowledge, other than Pao Gasol and Luol Deng. Neither seems reasonable, by any analysis that I've seen presented here.

                              So are we going to go on for another 193 posts cooking up far-fetched multiteam versions and posting our new dream Pacer lineup? Really?
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                This has devolved into random trade speculation thread now.

                                summary of he facts: If the Pacers want to re-sign Lance, they need to add no salary in trade for next year or beyond. Thus any trade would be for an equally big, if not bigger, expiring contract. No reasonable possibilities exist, to my knowledge, other than Pao Gasol and Luol Deng. Neither seems reasonable, by any analysis that I've seen presented here.

                                So are we going to go on for another 193 posts cooking up far-fetched multiteam versions and posting our new dream Pacer lineup? Really?

                                At least until the dunk contest starts!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X