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

  • #91
    Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

    I agree that the only realistic to move Granger is to be able to unload Cope's contract to come up with cap room for Lance.
    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

      Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
      We should trade him to a team desperate to shed salary so they have cap space to re-sign a growing star coming off their rookie deal.
      I got the sarcasm even if no one else did.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

        Originally posted by TinManJoshua
        We should trade him to a team desperate to shed salary so they have cap space to re-sign a growing star coming off their rookie deal.
        Originally posted by MnvrChvy View Post
        I got the sarcasm even if no one else did.


        Okay...now I get it too
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

          Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
          I feel like the media just wants some hypothetical big move from a contender to ponder over and discuss on TV until the trade deadline. Danny Granger and the Pacers just fit what they're looking for.
          I'm not saying that Granger would be that "big" move....but I REALLY think that there will be some "Buyers" out there ( Bobcats, Suns, Rockets ) that will be looking to make a huge trade for some Impact Players from "Sellers" looking to improve their Financial situation ( beyond this season ) or look to get some assets.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

            If you move Granger, you need A) An expiring coming back B) Another wing....at that point, isn't it just better to keep Granger?

            The only two clear upgrades would be Deng and Pierce, but I can't see either one of their team's moving them.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

              Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
              This may just be a question of semantics, but judging the market for a guy is different than actively shopping a guy. Lowe is making it sound like Bird is calling everyone and trying to trade Danny. Not just finding out what the market is.

              As to why Lowe might make something up, that is easy. To get people to read his column. To sound more knowledgeable than he is. Someone on another team exaggerated a conversation with Bird. Lowe's trying to scoop other writers. All the reasons sports writers have for making stuff up.
              It's possible Lowe is making it up, but I'd consider it unlikely for a couple of reasons:

              1) Lowe is not a reporter. He's more of an analyst type who only tends to share things he's learned if it's germane to the article that he's writing. He doesn't quote sources all that often, so it lends credibility to him when he does.

              2) Any value he gets by putting in the trade Granger note is mostly lost when he goes out of his way to point out that the Pacers would have a very difficult time finding a trade partner that fits their needs. It's pretty silly to make something that isn't that controversial up only to then stress that it isn't likely to happen. He also has dismissed trading Granger every time Bill Simmons brings it up for example for the same reasons.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                If you move Granger, you need A) An expiring coming back B) Another wing....at that point, isn't it just better to keep Granger?

                The only two clear upgrades would be Deng and Pierce, but I can't see either one of their team's moving them.
                You're assuming that that the purpose of moving Granger is purely to get back assets and what you mention ( another Wing ).

                What if one of the main goals to move Granger is to get ( A ) an expiring contract coming back, ( B ) another Wing and ( C ) dump Copeland. At that point....do you think that Bird would do that?

                But that's the problem.....we have no idea what would be the reason why Bird would consider moving Granger....either as sweetner to move Copeland ( for long-term Cap Relief ) or to simply get some assets in return for a Player that they do not intend to keep for the long term.

                By the way.....I don't think that it would make any sense for Bird to simply move Granger ( without moving Copeland ) just to see if Bird can get some "prospect" back along with an Expiring Contract. I consider re-signing Granger the "consolation prize" if the Pacers aren't able to re-sign Lance.....moving Granger for nothing but a prospect would not put the Pacers in a better position to re-sign Lance ( which I think is the ultimate goal between now and the Offseason ). The only reason IMHO to trade Granger is to dump Copeland's contract while getting back no long-term salary.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                  You only trade Granger under two circumstanced. The first being it is the only way to move Copeland for an expiring. The second being you have conceded you won't be able to re-sign Lance, and this past 10 games (ignoring that 10 game period where Danny was playing extremely well) is the best Danny will ever be again so you try to get a young promising asset from a team that needs cap space. I think all in all this falls more in line with some lower level front office guy exaggerating a phone call to simply judge interest. I would imagine most smart GMs do that regularly with at least 2/3rds of their players, just most players don't have name recognition like Granger. Either way I think you are a fool to try and trade Granger if you want to give this team the best chance to win a championship this season. I really do not think it would be difficult to trade Copeland, and maybe a second round pick or two for a second round pick or two especially around draft time.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    I really, really doubt that is the case.
                    Why do you really doubt that is the case? If you take all of your biases and past loyalty aside and look just at current production it isn't hard to see that in a role where we ask for someone to make shots Granger is not and Butler is. If we trade Granger I do not think it would be for a wing like some here suspect. I think it would be to upgrade another spot and clearing time in the rotation for Butler again. As much as I love Granger and what he has done for this orginization, the painful truth maybe that he just isn't even an upgrade to Rasual Butler anymore. Also why does everyone think we are set at back up PG and PF? Just because those were our 2 big bench acquisitions this off-season the sign of a great GM is admitting when he is wrong and fixing the situation and the bottom line might be that Scola just isn't that good anymore and that CJ doesn't fit our system (as much grief as DJ Augustin got last year CJ has some what been given a free pass because of the teams record but he was supposed to be a shot maker on a bench that desperately needs one and he just hasn't been).

                    I've been following the NBA rumor mill pretty closely for the Pacers and the names that come up are Kyle Lowry (this one I just don't see possible makes no sense for Toronto), Gary Neal (He has just been a miserable fit with the Bucks so far yet has been a proven contributor on a good team might make sense), Terrance Ross (again not sure why they'd trade him for Danny), and Jimmer (Larry has apparently been trying to acquire him for a season and a half now and with CJ shooting a near career low of 33 percent from downtown maybe he is looking to bring in a guy he thinks Lance can pass to that will hit it)....I do think the Pacers are actively looking to trade him just my gut feeling but I also just don't think the stars will align to where we both get something back that helps us this year and we keep money off the books for Lance this off-season. Danny will most likely still be a Pacer post deadline.
                    Last edited by VideoVandal; 02-11-2014, 08:01 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                      If the report is accurate its signals

                      A) Pacers are not interesting in re-signing Granger if Lance does walk

                      B) Pacers want a backup plan in place if Lance cannot be re-signed.

                      would hate to see Danny go but if the player replacing him is Deng, you have to make that deal in case Lance signs a max elsewhere.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                        I have been resistant to this in the past, but the best option going forward may be to move Granger to a more 4/3 role than a 3/4 role. Make him the primary backup PF, drop Scola (guaranteed) and Copeland (trade for 2nd round picks) as Granger's post defense is probably only second to West's on this team. Then have a third young more natural PF taking lessons from West, who gets <10 minutes moving Granger over to SF for about 10 minutes each game. Hopefully Solo and/or Orlando can step up and be decent contributors at SG and SF.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I have been resistant to this in the past, but the best option going forward may be to move Granger to a more 4/3 role than a 3/4 role. Make him the primary backup PF, drop Scola (guaranteed) and Copeland (trade for 2nd round picks) as Granger's post defense is probably only second to West's on this team. Then have a third young more natural PF taking lessons from West, who gets <10 minutes moving Granger over to SF for about 10 minutes each game. Hopefully Solo and/or Orlando can step up and be decent contributors at SG and SF.
                          I totally agree with this, I was thinking bout the possibility of dealing Scola for a prospect or some picks and would help the money situation in keeping Lance next year and we go with a 2nd unit of......C Bynum/Mahinmi, PF Danny/Cope (if he isn't included in the deal which he very well might be), SF Butler, SG Lance, PG Watson

                          Danny just may not be athletic enough to play the 3 anymore at a high rate but I do see him having good value as a stretch 4....He would definitely get better looks from downtown than the ones he is getting now with PFs guarding him which should raise his low percentage.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                            Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
                            Why do you really doubt that is the case? If you take all of your biases and past loyalty aside and look just at current production it isn't hard to see that in a role where we ask for someone to make shots Granger is not and Butler is.
                            Butler barely made the roster. He wasn't in the rotation at the start of the season. He has pleasantly surprised us with what he has been able to do in limited minutes, but let's not get carried away: He's an end of the bench veteran presence. People around here are being awfully hard on Danny. The guy missed a year and a half, he is a notoriously slow starter anyway, he is getting used to a new role, he isn't getting a lot of minutes to play through the rust, and he's not even the first option in those minutes. He's slower and his shot has been off. He's defended well and made some nice passes. The shooting I think will return. I'm not a Granger fanboy or anything, but I think trading him because you have the likes of Rasual Butler waiting to gobble up the backup wing minutes is extremely unlikely.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                              Oh, and the idea of Zach Lowe making this up is patently absurd. The guy is one of the best in the business and Grantland isn't exactly left wanting for page views. This isn't Bleacher Report here. His article wasn't headlined or led with rumors about the Pacers trading Granger; it was simply part of the column and it's not like this is the first time we have heard this.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                                Larry has said that he wants to win this year. There is only one deal that would help us even more with winning this year.

                                Danny for Shawn Marion and Vince Carter (both expiring, they are at $12.5M combined). It's the only deal that makes any sense for our goal of winning a championship this year (and that's assuming that Danny won't improve throughout the season, obviously).

                                But why would Dallas do this?

                                As others have said, I really doubt that we trade this year since the team that should be looking for a player like Granger is exactly like us.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X