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

    All I have to say is that I don't want to hear anyone complaining about players who don't take a hometown discount, or decide to leave their teams for a better offer. It isn't fair to expect loyalty on their end when teams are given a free pass to do what is in "their best interest". This one stings. Alot. I'm over it and I embrace ET and Allen, but the bad taste in my mouth will be there for a long while I'm sure. I guess I purposely forget that it's all a business sometimes or that our Pacers are different, and maybe we were on occasion under Walsh, but if we win a ring then anything is worth it I suppose. I just really wanted Danny to be a part of it.
    Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

    Comment


    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      He was shooting below 40% from the field! Wake up!
      Yes he was, maybe Lance should have been setting him up with good shots.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        Yes he was, maybe Lance should have been setting him up with good shots.
        Granger has had lots of wide open shots he would normally drain. He simply doesn't have his legs and his shooting went with it. He can't move laterally. I think you should head over to the Granger appreciation thread. ...just kidding....

        Comment


        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Yes he was, maybe Lance should have been setting him up with good shots.
          I don't want him taking more shots at that %, lol. Lance leads the team in assists and asking him to carry DG's lunch ain't fair.

          If Lance was shooting 36% something tells me you'd want him benched, it wouldn't be anyone else's fault.
          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

          Comment


          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Want the cold hard truth? Bird does not think highly of Granger's work ethic and doesn't believe he's going to make it back this year. He needs a wing who can produce down the stretch...and he just got one.
            Because the entire bench wasn't producing. Has nothing to do with Grangers work ethic. All he could do that past 2 summers was rehab, and Bird acknowledges that. If the other bench players were producing at a consistent clip, then Bird could afford to wait on Granger to round in to form. Granger was the only asset Bird could realistically move.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Want the cold hard truth? Bird does not think highly of Granger's work ethic and doesn't believe he's going to make it back this year. He needs a wing who can produce down the stretch...and he just got one.
              I truly hope so. Philly fans aren't convinced that Turner is effective when he isn't allowed to dominate the ball. It can work if we readjust Lance's substitution pattern and allow ET to do what Lance has been doing with the bench. ET is useless as an off the ball player. Luckily Watson plays off the ball more than most points.

              I'm open to Cope getting rotation minutes too, pick and pop with he and turner could be deadly, and he's honestly perhaps the best 3 point shooter on the roster other than maybe Paul.

              ET can prove me wrong. He has talent, but it's a very particular, specific talent. Our staff needs to utilize him in a controlled way to make it work, and ET needs to buy in to it, especially in regard to shot selection and playing hard on defense, which he doesn't have a reputation for. We'll soon find out how much his inadequacies are to blame on situation and how much are his own shortcomings. It's a clean slate though, and Larry has earned the benefit of the doubt many times over imo. But this is a bigger deal than Bynum. We got rid of the guy ET is replacing, a guy who is both well liked and tenured. There is no cut him and Ian is still here this time. If he busts it could get ugly, we're going to rely on him, I wish him the best and hope he can adjust to his new role. Billups didn't live up to his high pick either at first, sometimes guys need a change of scenery.
              Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

              Comment


              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                The only reason Granger got the minutes he did was because of his past and the hope he'd turn it around. It's going to be March very soon and he's not playing well at all. This is not your father's Danny Granger and it's time to turn the page and wish him well in Philly...or alternatively... wish him to play poorly in Miami.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                  Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                  I truly hope so. Philly fans aren't convinced that Turner is effective when he isn't allowed to dominate the ball. It can work if we readjust Lance's substitution pattern and allow ET to do what Lance has been doing with the bench. ET is useless as an off the ball player. Luckily Watson plays off the ball more than most points.

                  I'm open to Cope getting rotation minutes too, pick and pop with he and turner could be deadly, and he's honestly perhaps the best 3 point shooter on the roster other than maybe Paul.

                  ET can prove me wrong. He has talent, but it's a very particular, specific talent. Our staff needs to utilize him in a controlled way to make it work, and ET needs to buy in to it, especially in regard to shot selection and playing hard on defense, which he doesn't have a reputation for. We'll soon find out how much his inadequacies are to blame on situation and how much are his own shortcomings. It's a clean slate though, and Larry has earned the benefit of the doubt many times over imo. But this is a bigger deal than Bynum. We got rid of the guy ET is replacing, a guy who is both well liked and tenured. There is no cut him and Ian is still here this time. If he busts it could get ugly, we're going to rely on him, I wish him the best and hope he can adjust to his new role. Billups didn't live up to his high pick either at first, sometimes guys need a change of scenery.
                  Copeland is a good player to match with Turner. I think people need to realize that Turner has scored over 20ppg as a starter many times just this year. He will probably really help our bench and quality depth on the wing.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    Because the entire bench wasn't producing. Has nothing to do with Grangers work ethic. All he could do that past 2 summers was rehab, and Bird acknowledges that. If the other bench players were producing at a consistent clip, then Bird could afford to wait on Granger to round in to form. Granger was the only asset Bird could realistically move.
                    Not sure it's that. I love Danny, 3rd favorite Pacer of all time personally, but I believe that Larry is all in this year and would make any move that could pay off the most this season. Larry believed ET will produce more this year without hurting our cap. I believe Larry makes this move, which he likely thought a bit of a steal relative to hoping Danny rounds into form before the playoffs whether Scola Lance Ian and Cj were killing it or not.
                    Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                      I don't want him taking more shots at that %, lol. Lance leads the team in assists and asking him to carry DG's lunch ain't fair.

                      If Lance was shooting 36% something tells me you'd want him benched, it wouldn't be anyone else's fault.
                      Ridiculous! If Granger makes one more shot per game he is averaging 49%. Your numbers are meaningless. Man if only Lance would manage to get Danny on a back door cut every game, all our problems would have been solved.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                        Ridiculous! If Granger makes one more shot per game he is averaging 49%. Your numbers are meaningless. Man if only Lance would manage to get Danny on a back door cut every game, all our problems would have been solved.
                        If...if...if...if....if Danny would of just hit 49% of the shots he took....but he didn't.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Copeland is a good player to match with Turner. I think people need to realize that Turner has scored over 20ppg as a starter many times just this year. He will probably really help our bench and quality depth on the wing.
                          No doubt he's had big games, but he'll need to prove he can produce in a limited role in a way conducive to winning. Brandon Knight has had multiple 30 plus point games this year. I can see a scenario where this pays off big time, but it will require some adaptation by evan and the coaching staff. Agreed about cope though, he's a big part of why this will work if it does, he can space the floor better than Danny had been and Evan can bring some of the same things to the table as Lance. If we could fix his shot ET could be a star, but it's broken atm, and he forces some terrible shots in philly as a result of guys sagging off of him and playing for the drive or letting him chuck a contested fadeaway, which unless you're PG or DWesque from that distance is always
                          a pretty inefficient shot. There is certainly a value to him as a creator when the offense stagnates though, and it shouldn't be understated. Im also intrigued by a situational ET/Lance/PG/DW/Bighibbs lineup. 4/5 players being able to post up each with a length or strength advantage... that sounds interesting to me and would force adjustments, especially since we can cross match PG with the opposing point guard so Evan doesn't need to chase the quicker smaller player on the perimeter and Lance can hold his own against small forwards because of his strength.
                          Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            2 full months? Please, the first month he had minute restrictions, and was still getting into shape. He hit a slump with his jumper just like every other player on the team. I don't think Larry gave him much of a chance, and with Lance being self and ball dominant in the 2nd unit, Granger was forced to completely change his game on the fly. Thats hard to do in 2 months. If the Pacers went on a 15 game winning streak, Granger doesn't get traded. 30 games isn't enough time to rule on a player returning from major injury. Last time PG or Lance averaged 20 minutes a game they didn't look consistent either. Its not like they were running plays for Danny in the 2nd unit.

                            This move was 100% the result of the team struggling over the past month. Bird wasn't even looking to trade Danny, so you can't say he played so poorly that he got himself traded. Danny's contract was the only real asset that Bird could let go of and Philly knew it.
                            I suppose that Lance was the reason that Danny can't finish at the rim neither, huh? Look, I loved Danny as much as the next guy, but this isn't the same Danny that sacrificed a couple teeth diving for a loose ball. That Danny suffered some injuries, got a few years older, lost some of his speed and a little of his shooting touch. And I'm not applauding the trade, just yet....but I understand the reasoning behind it. I would've rather Danny finish out the year as a Pacer; but if this trade can get us a championship (which is what I've been striving for as a fan), then I, personally won't have any regrets. I don't want to be just a great team, but lacked any rings like in the Reggie years, I want us to win the finals.

                            But on the flip side, if the second unit comes in and looks completely frickin' horrible, I'll side with you on this trade being the move that killed our swag.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                              Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                              I truly hope so. Philly fans aren't convinced that Turner is effective when he isn't allowed to dominate the ball. It can work if we readjust Lance's substitution pattern and allow ET to do what Lance has been doing with the bench. ET is useless as an off the ball player. Luckily Watson plays off the ball more than most points.

                              I'm open to Cope getting rotation minutes too, pick and pop with he and turner could be deadly, and he's honestly perhaps the best 3 point shooter on the roster other than maybe Paul.

                              ET can prove me wrong. He has talent, but it's a very particular, specific talent. Our staff needs to utilize him in a controlled way to make it work, and ET needs to buy in to it, especially in regard to shot selection and playing hard on defense, which he doesn't have a reputation for. We'll soon find out how much his inadequacies are to blame on situation and how much are his own shortcomings. It's a clean slate though, and Larry has earned the benefit of the doubt many times over imo. But this is a bigger deal than Bynum. We got rid of the guy ET is replacing, a guy who is both well liked and tenured. There is no cut him and Ian is still here this time. If he busts it could get ugly, we're going to rely on him, I wish him the best and hope he can adjust to his new role. Billups didn't live up to his high pick either at first, sometimes guys need a change of scenery.
                              I'm not sold on Turner at all, regardless of losing Danny. He was inefficient on a terrible team. Its not like Turner is gonna magically start shooting the 3 at a decent clip. About the only silver lining I'm looking forward to is that this will Force vogel to change the offensive schemes for the bench to try and maximize Turner's abilities. Which also means getting Lance under control.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                If...if...if...if....if Danny would of just hit 49% of the shots he took....but he didn't.
                                Imagine if Danny hit 6 of 5 shots. That would make about as much sense.

                                I think the (removed infraction) need to take a step back and look at the big picture. Whatever Granger meant to this franchise...and whatever excuses people have for his play...is not going to matter in the series with Miami. What will matter is if we have a good backup wing to deal with Wade and maybe LeBron. Someone better than OJ. Someone better than the ghost of Danny Granger which is all that we have seen this year...and all we would have seen.

                                It's time to turn the page. It's official. Granger is done here in Indy and Vnzla has to be partying tonight...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X