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

Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

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

  • #46
    Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    Granger's regressed too much to be worth #7 and Lee.
    Seriously? I think GS fans would jump at that, while I certainly wouldn't for the Pacers. What say you d_c?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      Seriously? I think GS fans would jump at that, while I certainly wouldn't for the Pacers. What say you d_c?
      I don't know that the Warriors would do that. If they did, they wouldn't have a starting PF and, having traded the pick, they'd lack the assets to acquire one. It's more than likely they'll ask Philly for Iggy in return for the #7 and Jefferson's contract. Warriors would probably throw in the #30 pick as well. A Curry, Thompson, Iggy, Lee and Bogut starting 5 is pretty good and would work well together.

      I'm sure they'll ask Portland about Batum, but I think his price will be too high.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

        Only thing I'd really be interested in trading Danny for is a playmaking Point Guard. Everything else seems like rearranging the furniture. I would like to have the 7 pick in this draft though, very intriguing group to pick from at that spot.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          Looks to me like someone needs a reminder of a game by game comparison of Monta vs. Danny again & who's team won each game.
          Just Monta or some of the other comparisons aswell?
          Last edited by Mourning; 06-01-2012, 05:40 AM.
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #50
            Granger brings us 17-18ppg, defense, a shooting threat, a little rebounding, and toughness. If we're trading him we need to bring somebody back that gives us more than that, or it needs to at least be a move that puts us into position to get a better player than him. Anything else is a lateral move -- and we're not in position to make lateral moves, we need to make moves that will put us in championship contention.

            Somebody else said it in this thread and I will agree. Paul George would be gone before Danny... And I don't see George being gone either.

            Comment


            • #51
              They would have to give me Curry + Pick or Curry, pick and Thompson for Danny (and DC in the second case) for me to even pick up the phone.


              Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
              Senior at the University of Louisville.
              Greenfield ---> The Ville

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                Granger brings us 17-18ppg, defense, a shooting threat, a little rebounding, and toughness. If we're trading him we need to bring somebody back that gives us more than that, or it needs to at least be a move that puts us into position to get a better player than him. Anything else is a lateral move -- and we're not in position to make lateral moves, we need to make moves that will put us in championship contention.

                Somebody else said it in this thread and I will agree. Paul George would be gone before Danny... And I don't see George being gone either.
                I agree with that. Say next year Ok can't pay Harden, they might do a trade for PG. I would do that right now, but maybe not by the end of next year.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                  Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                  Just Monta or some of the other comparisons aswell?
                  Oh please. We don't want to get "anyone" started. Two years ago, it was Murphy. Last year it was DunJr and Rush. We cleared them all off so the heir apparent to the "let's choose a new scapegoat" has been Granger this season, at least for "some people".

                  Hell, if we got rid of Granger, are we to be shocked if "some people" then shift their negative attention to Paul George? "Some people" just have to have a player to b!tch about and pick apart.

                  Personally, I like some players better than others and prefer certain players over others depending on game situations, but I can honestly say that I am very pleased that I am finally able to say that all players are "likeable".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    #7 for Granger? I think that's an easy pass. Here are the past #7's. I think Danny is above that average...and I'm not a big Granger fan. I am open to trading a known and younger asset for Granger...but not a chance.

                    Bismack Biyombo
                    Greg Monroe
                    Stephen Curry
                    Eric Gordon

                    Corey Brewer
                    Randy Foye
                    Charlie Villanueva
                    3 of those guys are clearly better than Granger. I'd say it's about 50-50 whether you find a better player than Granger at 7. My initial thought is, I wouldn't do it unless Bradley Beal drops to 7.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                      I would do T-Hans+Granger for 7th pick + Lee... Then I would pick Dion Waiters and never look back.

                      Dion Waiters is the ultimate sleeper in this class. He is everything we don't have on offense. Attacks the rim with confidence, great ball handler, can play spot minutes at the 1, excellent passer, and a tremendous athlete.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        3 of those guys are clearly better than Granger. I'd say it's about 50-50 whether you find a better player than Granger at 7. My initial thought is, I wouldn't do it unless Bradley Beal drops to 7.
                        Seriously? On Paper sure, all of them are young and offer alot of value going forward, but they have to actually play the games.

                        I believe the quotes coming out of Golden State last year were that Curry could permanently damage his ankle and ruin his career if he didn't rest it. So who knows if that guy is healthy or not going forward. Somebody get the man new shoes so his ankle doesn't fall off.

                        Eric Gordon- sure I'd love to have him, but again injury issues...

                        Monroe is going to be a beast but lets be real he isn't even the conversation for the Pacers.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                          Seriously? On Paper sure, all of them are young and offer alot of value going forward, but they have to actually play the games.

                          I believe the quotes coming out of Golden State last year were that Curry could permanently damage his ankle and ruin his career if he didn't rest it. So who knows if that guy is healthy or not going forward. Somebody get the man new shoes so his ankle doesn't fall off.

                          Eric Gordon- sure I'd love to have him, but again injury issues...

                          Monroe is going to be a beast but lets be real he isn't even the conversation for the Pacers.
                          The point is that finding a better player than Granger with the 7th pick is anything but impossible. In fact, it's about 50-50. If BlueNGold would have added one year to his list, it would have been exactly 50-50. Luol Deng was taken there in 2004.

                          As for the three I'd highlighted, if any one of those players were offered for Granger straight up, even in spite of their injury issues, it would be an absolute no brainer.
                          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                          -Lance Stephenson

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            Oh please. We don't want to get "anyone" started. Two years ago, it was Murphy. Last year it was DunJr and Rush. We cleared them all off so the heir apparent to the "let's choose a new scapegoat" has been Granger this season, at least for "some people".

                            Hell, if we got rid of Granger, are we to be shocked if "some people" then shift their negative attention to Paul George? "Some people" just have to have a player to b!tch about and pick apart.

                            Personally, I like some players better than others and prefer certain players over others depending on game situations, but I can honestly say that I am very pleased that I am finally able to say that all players are "likeable".


                            Well said. Some people always have to have someone to be angry with. This team is heading in the right direction and there is no need to trade a veteran for an unproven pick. I think Larry's philosophy of drafting 3-4 year college players from winning programs is starting to pay dividends. The biggest complaint most of us have had with PG is his maturity. He was a 2 year college guy. I think we can get a decent bench player with our current pick, re-sign our core and add a veteran FA to help us take the next step. I've said it many times - this team reminds me of the early 90's Pacers and that team was built through the draft (often unpopular but wise picks - Steve Alford instead of Reggie?) and being patient with young players.
                            "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                            - Benjamin Franklin

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                              Originally posted by Steagles View Post
                              They would have to give me Curry + Pick or Curry, pick and Thompson for Danny (and DC in the second case) for me to even pick up the phone.


                              Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
                              Who is this Danny super hero that you are referring to? lol
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                                Picks 6-8, the past 10 NBA Drafts:

                                2002
                                #6. Dajuan Wagner
                                #7. Nene
                                #8. Chris Wilcox

                                2003
                                #6. Cris Kaman
                                #7. Kirk Hinrich
                                #8. T.J. Ford

                                2004
                                #6. Josh Childress
                                #7. Luol Deng
                                #8. Rafael Araujo

                                2005
                                #6. Martell Webster
                                #7. Charlie Villanueva
                                #8. Channing Frye

                                2006
                                #6. Brandon Roy
                                #7. Randy Foye
                                #8. Rudy Gay

                                2007
                                #6. Yi Jianlian
                                #7. Corey Brewer
                                #8. Brandan Wright

                                2008
                                #6. Danilo Gallinari
                                #7. Eric Gordon
                                #8. Joe Alexander

                                2009
                                #6. Johnny Flynn
                                #7. Stephen Curry
                                #8. Jordan Hill

                                2010
                                #6. Ekpe Udoh
                                #7. Greg Monroe
                                #8. Al-Farouq Aminu

                                2011
                                #6. Jan Vesley
                                #7. Bismack Biyombo
                                #8. Brandon Knight

                                There's been a few very good players selected in this range over the past decade, and one great player, Brandon Roy, but, for the most part, that's a underwhelming list of names.

                                Using that list as a predictor, I'd say there's about a...

                                • 07% chance #7 lands a player noticeably better than Danny Granger.
                                • 22% chance #7 lands a player roughly the same quality as Danny Granger.
                                • 71% chance #7 lands a player significantly worse than Danny Granger.

                                Danny for #7 doesn't seem worth it to me, especially knowing that this time team, as currently constructed, made serious progress this past season. If we could get a team to observe Danny's contract, meaning we ended up with both #7 and an additional $10-11M in capspace, then I might consider it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X