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

Granger traded to Philly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    It also takes a certain amount of timing not to have to do it. Most of the time with those players the Spurs weren't under LT pressure, and now they are all on the downside end of contracts. Their top paid guy this year makes less than Danny did. Easy to keep players when none of them are on a max deal.
    I get that, BillS. I'm not trying to discredit the management for doing that trade. I do understand the reasoning behind the move and I welcome Evan Turner and Lavoy Allen to the team with open arms. I can just see the point that Kuq_e_Zi91 made.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
      If the team was winning at a high clip like the beginning of the season then you bet he wouldn't have been traded. Bird would have felt comfortable enough to let him keep working at it. Sixers present an opportunity to act and Bird took it. But it they were winning then the opportunity wouldn't have looked so appealing.
      I think this trade has as much to do with this year as it does next year. Bird is no dummy when it comes to Lance and what he will get offered next year and he knows he's up against the LT.

      Now my opinion would change if Bird was actively shopping Granger but he wasn't so I think he was happy with letting it play out. I mean if he needed a reason why they were losing there would be easier scapegoats than Danny and I would think a great basketball mind wouldn't succumb to the notion that Danny was at fault for the entire teams bad play or that removing him from the equation would solve all the losing going on.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
        It's easy to say the Spurs are classy and wouldn't dismantle their team like that. It's easy to say it because the Spurs have had at least one Hall of Fame player on their team since the late 1980s, and so as a result haven't had to do it. Some of that is front office skill, and some of it is dumb luck. Nobody was planning on David Robinson having a season-ending injury, which is what led to Tim Duncan. I think if the Admiral had stayed healthy that season, and there's no Timmy, I think that narrative changes quite a bit.
        Perhaps it does. We'll never know. But I'm pretty sure that this team has 1 or 2 guys that are going to be on the HOF one day. And I certainly want to see them retire as Pacers.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

          Just excited to see Evan play tomorrow so we can hopefully fully move on from this.


          Comment


          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Sure it could be argued. Anything can be argued. It could be argued that if Granger could log Turner's minutes and was given Turner's green light in Philly, he could probably also approach 17/6/3 per game. It could be argued that Granger is a better locker-room leader. It could be argued that Granger did what he did as a backup in limited minutes, in Indy's slow plodding offensive system, coming off a major injury and was just starting to get back into game shape, while Turner got his in starter's minutes, with the starting 5, in a very up-tempo system that perhaps inflated the stats a bit.

            It's all arguable. Obviously, I'm in favor of the trade from a business perspective. But to say that it isn't arguable is not being objective and reasonable. But the clear factor for me is that Turner is much younger, is on the up-swing of his career, is much cheaper... and Granger is on the down-swing, is older, injured, and was damn expensive. I think Turner will be an upgrade and better fit system-wise. I wouldn't expect him to duplicate his stat-line here in Indy, though. And likewise, if Granger hangs on in Philly and contributes, I expect his stats to see a pretty noticeable improvement.
            For example, Granger scores 1.07 points per shot this season while Turner has scored 1.12 points per shot. For a grand total difference of 0.03 points per shot. Or in the very likely occurrence that we face Miami in the playoffs, who is going to guard Lebron if Paul is in foul trouble or just to give Paul a break? Personally I don't think it is a good idea to have Paul guard Lebron for 40+ minutes a game. Danny was the only other player on this team that had the ability to not get absolutely destroyed by Lebron, and I doubt Turner is capable. As well most team statistics put Granger as having the 5th or 6th most positive affect on the team, usually ahead of Lance. He may have been shooting poorly, but he was still having a very positive affect on the team as a whole. Part of it was his presence alone opening things up offensively for others, and part of it was his hustle and hard work on the boards and defense. As well it is usually teams with veteran cores that win championships, not young ones.

            Things aren't as always clear cut as they seem on the surface. In order for this trade to work out there will be a major shift in rotations, or Butler is going to prove he can be a consistent threat from 3. Either way there is a whole new set of questions to ask.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Yeah, in our NBA era, the only big names I can think of who started their careers from start to finish as Pacers were Miller and Smits. Miller was obviously a legend who put the franchise on the map and was able to go out on whatever terms he wanted. Smits played 12 years here, which is quite a bit, and was forced into retirement because of foot trouble. So who knows if we would have ultimately cut bait with him too had he tried to keep playing.

              Mark Jackson is another one. Didn't start his career here, but was traded once and then we let him walk after 2000.

              Danny was good, but he was never an "OMG, this guy has to retire as a Pacer no matter what" type of player.
              There was also a Mr. Jeff Foster who spent his whole career here


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                Originally posted by PaulGeorgeHill View Post
                There was also a Mr. Jeff Foster who spent his whole career here


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                Well if we're going down to that quality of player, then I guess I should mention that we let Vern Fleming walk after he played here 11 years.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Well if we're going down to that quality of player, then I guess I should mention that we let Vern Fleming walk after he played here 11 years.
                  Haha but everyone loved Jeff!!! And I guess we could add Jonathan Bender to that list as well lol


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                    Originally posted by PaulGeorgeHill View Post
                    Haha but everyone loved Jeff!!! And I guess we could add Jonathan Bender to that list as well lol


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                    Didnt Bender have a short stint with the knicks?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                      Didnt Bender have a short stint with the knicks?
                      Uh yeah I think you may be right, mark him off the list


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                        WHAT?? We let Vern Fleming go??? Dammit, Bird! You're f'n everything up!
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          For example, Granger scores 1.07 points per shot this season while Turner has scored 1.12 points per shot. For a grand total difference of 0.03 points per shot. Or in the very likely occurrence that we face Miami in the playoffs, who is going to guard Lebron if Paul is in foul trouble or just to give Paul a break? Personally I don't think it is a good idea to have Paul guard Lebron for 40+ minutes a game. Danny was the only other player on this team that had the ability to not get absolutely destroyed by Lebron, and I doubt Turner is capable. As well most team statistics put Granger as having the 5th or 6th most positive affect on the team, usually ahead of Lance. He may have been shooting poorly, but he was still having a very positive affect on the team as a whole. Part of it was his presence alone opening things up offensively for others, and part of it was his hustle and hard work on the boards and defense. As well it is usually teams with veteran cores that win championships, not young ones.

                          Things aren't as always clear cut as they seem on the surface. In order for this trade to work out there will be a major shift in rotations, or Butler is going to prove he can be a consistent threat from 3. Either way there is a whole new set of questions to ask.
                          I always looked at it as Danny essentially playing the "glue guy" role off the bench that Lance had last year with the starters. (Outside of their shooing percentages, all the other numbers are basically the same).

                          Outside of the game against Atl when he lost Korver a few times, I thought he was playing pretty good defensively, was rebounding well, and was doing a good job of being active. Also like Lance from last year, we hadn't seen any proof that Danny was going to be able to be a consistent scorer for us, especially in the playoffs.

                          It all boils down to the idea that Turner can provide all of those intangible things AS WELL as offer some punch offensively, and the idea that we can keep Turner in case Lance decides to take a big contract elsewhere. But if we are going to put Turner in the best position to succeed, we should probably tweak the rotation a bit so that Turner isn't playing most of his minutes with Lance the way that Granger was.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                            I really, really can't buy into the notion that somehow Granger was handicapped by having to play a large portion of his minutes with Lance.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                              Are you guys just being hard-headed when it comes to the rotation? Sual is not going to be in the rotation. Copeland is not going to back up Paul. Turner is taking Danny's spot in the rotation, and will therefore play half his time with Lance and half with Paul. Straight from Coach's mouth. Why is this still being discussed.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                                Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                                Are you guys just being hard-headed when it comes to the rotation? Sual is not going to be in the rotation. Copeland is not going to back up Paul. Turner is taking Danny's spot in the rotation, and will therefore play half his time with Lance and half with Paul. Straight from Coach's mouth. Why is this still being discussed.
                                I thought adding Evan was to give Lance less minutes? All this talk about how Evan is a good playmaker and distributor. I am thinking that maybe they want to see less of Lance with the bench guys. Er go, Evan is the new Lance for the second unit. That's what I was led to believe this trade was about. I guess not, or we'll see? Also playing Copeland at backup 3 and Evan at backup 2 stretches the floor more. Just makes more sense. Evan can go to the basket, draw & kick. Bynum can draw double-teams and kick. And out there is Turner/Copeland/Watson/Allen/Scola.

                                Lance is not a great spot up shooter. Cope is more accurate. With Lance, Evan will draw and kick, and Lance will then drive. That would clutter the lane. Also I think our team would benefit more from exploiting the threat of the 3 ball. We can do that with Cope getting dish-outs from ET or AB.
                                Last edited by Grimp; 02-24-2014, 04:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X