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

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

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Lateral moves are still worth doing if it means the talent going out was not as good of a fit with the rest of your roster as the talent coming in.

    Absolutely! The player coming in brings aspects that the player being traded doesn't have... reb, better "D", better handles, better to the rim game, etc.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      I disagree, he won't get anything more then and MLE offer from any other team. Maybe not even the full MLE. Market value for good combo guards was only about 5 mil last year and teams are going to use more caution this year as the grace period for the LT comes to an end with the 2013/14 season.
      I am not saying he will get overpaid just that we could probably have gotten him for 6.5 and kept the pick.

      The 7 million number is what I think Bird would walk away from and let him go.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        I think it's unlikely Drummond falls past Portland at #6 and, if he did, I think the W's would probably keep him to themselves as he'd be excellent value at #7. Even if he wound up busting he'd still hhave value for at least a few years due to his perceived potential (see Anthony Randolph).
        Yeah I doubt he falls, that is why I say I doubt a deal happens, at this point I could not see trading up that far to get PJIII, Lamb, Barnes, or Lillard only guys worth trading up that high to get, for that cost would be Beal, Drummond and possibly MKG but I don't really love his fit on this team, he is basically a shorter PG, that plays more aggressive not can't stretch a defense.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


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

          If G.S. can take on some cap, I say go for it.

          Trade Granger for Klay and the pick and open up cap space for deron williams. Then get a great pick at 7 and a decent pick at 26 in this deep draft and we'll be looking very very good

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by tmhall11 View Post
            If G.S. can take on some cap, I say go for it.

            Trade Granger for Klay and the pick and open up cap space for deron williams. Then get a great pick at 7 and a decent pick at 26 in this deep draft and we'll be looking very very good
            Until Deron Williams makes some indication that he would indeed play for the Pacers, I'm certainly not clearing any sort of additional cap space for him. It's just wishful thinking that he wants to sign here at this point.

            Comment


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

              I'm just stating what should be obvious, Bird is not going to make some huge gamble trading away our best players just to shake things up. Bird's history and statements show this to be true, this isn't my attempt to play GM. Any deal we could make with our core players would be lateral at best at this point. The team we have already fits together perfectly, you trade your role-players to fit around the core, not the other way around. If you think core players means Pendergraph or Fez, then you certainly are in no position to be playing GM yourself. Obviously core means your top 2-3 players, and in the Pacer's case maybe 3-4.

              And yes, the fact this team was top 5 DOES matter. You don't start over from scratch every year. Obviously other teams are trying to improve and the Pacers will as well. But that doesn't happen by taking huge gambles trading away your best players on unproven risks, especially #7 draft picks. We are NOT in rebuilding mode anymore folks, stop pretending we are, or should be.

              Let me ask you this, what teams have went from near-contenders to contenders by trading away their best players, unless they got a hugely lopsided trade in their favor?

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Yep he is saying that he wants to keep the "core" together, but how do you know who he think are the "core players"? For all I know Lance and Pendergrahp are part of the "core" have you talk to Larry personally to know who are the players? If the answer is no, then stop complaining about people wanting to trade somebody because nobody knows who are the untouchables.
                The core players have been listed before in the newspaper, and Danny was one of the core players. Look it up.

                However after you read it I don't expect you to change your negative view. After all you have probably argued with most all the forum by now and that hasn't stopped you.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                  I'm just stating what should be obvious, Bird is not going to make some huge gamble trading away our best players just to shake things up. Bird's history and statements show this to be true, this isn't my attempt to play GM. Any deal we could make with our core players would be lateral at best at this point. The team we have already fits together perfectly, you trade your role-players to fit around the core, not the other way around. If you think core players means Pendergraph or Fez, then you certainly are in no position to be playing GM yourself. Obviously core means your top 2-3 players, and in the Pacer's case maybe 3-4.

                  And yes, the fact this team was top 5 DOES matter. You don't start over from scratch every year. Obviously other teams are trying to improve and the Pacers will as well. But that doesn't happen by taking huge gambles trading away your best players on unproven risks, especially #7 draft picks. We are NOT in rebuilding mode anymore folks, stop pretending we are, or should be.

                  Let me ask you this, what teams have went from near-contenders to contenders by trading away their best players, unless they got a hugely lopsided trade in their favor?
                  Only Bird and Simon knows who are the guys he is going to keep stop pretending like you have some inside information, you are just speculating like everybody else, you like act like you are the only one that should be able to have an opinion around here, get off of that high horse.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    The core players have been listed before in the newspaper, and Danny was one of the core players. Look it up.

                    However after you read it I don't expect you to change your negative view. After all you have probably argued with most all the forum by now and that hasn't stopped you.
                    Yeah like Bird is going to tell people who he is going to keep and are the "core players" I remember when Rush was part of that core, or Mcbob or Jarret Jack........
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


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

                      I doubt the Pacers are willing to part with Granger and Collison for Curry and the 7th pick. We were a couple games away from the Eastern Conference Finals. At this point, trading our captain and above average veteran backup point guard for Seth Curry and a rookie is rebuilding. Rebuilding doesn't seem like too bright of an idea at this moment.

                      Curry Klay and the 7th for Granger and Collison is a little better I guess, but I don't know. I doubt GSW pulls the trigger anyway. Klay Thompson is good. That kid can score in bunches.

                      I'd be down for Paul George and the 26th for Klay. I'd do that in the blink of an eye. If they want to throw in the 7th, even better. Highly unlikely though.

                      I love you Larry

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Only Bird and Simon knows who are the guys he is going to keep stop pretending like you have some inside information, you are just speculating like everybody else, you like act like you are the only one that should be able to have an opinion around here, get off of that high horse.
                        What inside information, its history and Birds own words. When has Bird ever made any crazy moves involving our best players? When has any winning GM done something like that?

                        I don't get why this core players term is confusing you so much. Is it your blind hatred for Danny Granger that keeps you from seeing he's one of our top players?

                        Comment


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

                          VNZLA Bird has said more then once DG wont be traded for reasons of loyalty, something that also binds people to a team, now i know it is something totally stange to you, seeing as you are trading our roster on a regular base, but there are also people who think the same way in ways of loyalty.

                          I for one am with Peck, no need to trade granger, get a better player alongside him and until PG has proven he is better then DG it is not even in the discussion that he is hindered by position or not, DG got the same minutes and was a far better platyer at the ned of year 2

                          It is the continuous beating of a totally dead horse you are doing that gets on people's nerve; we know how you think about granger, for the sake of humanity i ask you friendly to drop the stick and concentrate on another trick.
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Yeah like Bird is going to tell people who he is going to keep and are the "core players" I remember when Rush was part of that core, or Mcbob or Jarret Jack........
                            They were part of the foundation for building. Granger is and always has been part of the core.

                            Comment


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

                              Yes, we were 5th in the league this year... but this is the last year in a long time we will be able to go after free agents, and we could do a lot better than 5th. If that is a possibility, then I say you have to take it. What's the point in standing pat and trying to stay in the top 5 with the core we have now instead of giving ourselves a chance at being even greater.

                              Also, I would much rather get rid of danny than paul. Paul's defense is huge in our scheme, and this team will not progress much further with Danny as the captain. We need a new captain. Whether that means trading Danny, or someone stepping up that is already on the team. He's a decent leader and a decent player, but without a new leader we will always be around 5th instead of around 1st.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                VNZLA Bird has said more then once DG wont be traded for reasons of loyalty, something that also binds people to a team, now i know it is something totally stange to you, seeing as you are trading our roster on a regular base, but there are also people who think the same way in ways of loyalty.

                                I for one am with Peck, no need to trade granger, get a better player alongside him and until PG has proven he is better then DG it is not even in the discussion that he is hindered by position or not, DG got the same minutes and was a far better platyer at the ned of year 2

                                It is the continuous beating of a totally dead horse you are doing that gets on people's nerve; we know how you think about granger, for the sake of humanity i ask you friendly to drop the stick and concentrate on another trick.
                                Larry said that in the past, before this season ended, again show me some prove that he is still thinking the same thing.

                                I also think is funny that they guy who beast the "Tyler Hansbroug horse" or the "Larry Bird sucks horse" non stop is the one telling me to stop beating a dead horse.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X