Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    Second unit looks old at times. Scola and Granger are showing their age. Orlando and Solo aren't ready to contribute. We need some young, hungry guys that can play
    Scola has looked and played this way for years. He has had an old man's game since he got to the NBA. He's slow, he can't really jump, he's a bad defender, but he is usually money on those mid-range jumpers and if we unleashed him on the block more often, he would display his dazzling array of pump fakes, head fakes, quasi-Dream shakes, scoop shots, and other nifty moves that he uses to score. I really, really wish we would let him post up more often. He's really fun to watch down there.

    Comment


    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      Danny has been a disappointment off the bench and Bird cannot be happy with his play. Danny's role was supposed to be a serious weapon off the bench. A game changer like Jamaal Crawford on LAC. Sure Danny hits some shots from time to time, but has been too inconsistent. Doesn't impact every game he plays. He has been in the rotation for a while now, and just doesn't look like the same player from 2 years ago.
      I dont think that there was anyone who believed that DG would come back and be the player that he was two years ago... I think that his current production is about what the average expectation for him were... Not quite as good as what some had imagioned and not quite as bad as the rest imagioned...
      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

      Comment


      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

        Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
        Let me suggest an unpopular idea, but one that has not been discussed because it is VERY unlikely atm... But assuming Lance keeps showing this grown over the next few weeks, is it a possibility that TPTB choose to move Lance instead of losing him for nothing this offseason?? What possibilities are out there that would be a plausible situation where Lance gets traded... I dont feel that the FO is prepared to go max money to resign Lance, and I am not sure that Lance is to far from getting that kind of money from some team looking to take a risk...

        I am not suggesting that I would do this, or that it is remotely likely, but its something that hasnt been discussed or even considered by many here..
        Its a good idea, but probably not going to happen during the season. We are "all in" on winning a championship this year. Trading Lance could help Indiana for the next few years, but would weaken our team this year
        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

        Comment


        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
          I would trade Danny for a young, disappointing player, full of potential whose current team might have given up on. Like what happened to Wesley Johnson and Derrick Williams. Those guys are doing OK for their new teams. Is Dion Waiters available? Cleveland cannot be happy with his progress and would be a great backup SG.
          Then you might as well throw Lance into that trade because this kind of trade hurts us in terms of resigning Lance than it would help...
          Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

          Comment


          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

            Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
            I dont think that there was anyone who believed that DG would come back and be the player that he was two years ago... I think that his current production is about what the average expectation for him were... Not quite as good as what some had imagioned and not quite as bad as the rest imagioned...
            DG was obviously not going to be the same guy from 2 years ago, but I don't think expecting Danny to be close to that level is unreasonable. I was expecting him to be a serious threat and possible sixth man of the year candidate. My expectations were probably Bird's as well, and I don't think Larry is happy with DG's regression
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Scola has looked and played this way for years. He has had an old man's game since he got to the NBA. He's slow, he can't really jump, he's a bad defender, but he is usually money on those mid-range jumpers and if we unleashed him on the block more often, he would display his dazzling array of pump fakes, head fakes, quasi-Dream shakes, scoop shots, and other nifty moves that he uses to score. I really, really wish we would let him post up more often. He's really fun to watch down there.
              We don't post up Scola because every time he dribbles, he turns the ball over
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                Then you might as well throw Lance into that trade because this kind of trade hurts us in terms of resigning Lance than it would help...
                Could you trade Danny for another expiring player that could help us this year? You have to look at it as who gives us the best chance to win a title this year. If there is a player that could help more than Danny, regardless of money this season, you get him. Bird is not playing any games at all.
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                  The only team I saw in this thread that I think would even consider a trade for Danny, would maybe be the Lakers. They are really hurting for warm bodies at this point in the season. If Larry really wants to change the team(which I doubt seriously) we might do Granger and Scola for Pau Gasol. Pau could backup David and maybe Roy if needed. He can score and still has some defense. Lakers get 2 for one, both of which they can unload at the end of the season. Pacers get $19m in expiring and a better PF for scoring and size. However, unless Frank and Larry know something we haven't seen yet, Butler and Cope for the backup 3 is a little scary? These guys haven't even seen the floor for very much mop up duty this season. We might offer Ian as part of that trade if the Lakers would go for it. That just might leave enough Cap next year to retain Lance. IIRC we have 7.7 million in cap space after we let Danny walk at the end of the year if we keep Luis? That's not enough money for next year, but Larry has said over and over he's not worried about next year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    DG was obviously not going to be the same guy from 2 years ago, but I don't think expecting Danny to be close to that level is unreasonable. I was expecting him to be a serious threat and possible sixth man of the year candidate. My expectations were probably Bird's as well, and I don't think Larry is happy with DG's regression
                    I dont feel that its fair to say that Danny has regressed, his production is much more than it has been the past two years... I would say that he has improved simply by being on the floor... I also agree that it is not much to expect that Danny will approach his production of the past, but not this year, not on this team... I think that he will be much improved next year, similarly to how those coming off of major knee injuries typically dont return to form until the second season...
                    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                      Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                      The only team I saw in this thread that I think would even consider a trade for Danny, would maybe be the Lakers. They are really hurting for warm bodies at this point in the season. If Larry really wants to change the team(which I doubt seriously) we might do Granger and Scola for Pau Gasol. Pau could backup David and maybe Roy if needed. He can score and still has some defense. Lakers get 2 for one, both of which they can unload at the end of the season. Pacers get $19m in expiring and a better PF for scoring and size. However, unless Frank and Larry know something we haven't seen yet, Butler and Cope for the backup 3 is a little scary? These guys haven't even seen the floor for very much mop up duty this season. We might offer Ian as part of that trade if the Lakers would go for it. That just might leave enough Cap next year to retain Lance. IIRC we have 7.7 million in cap space after we let Danny walk at the end of the year if we keep Luis? That's not enough money for next year, but Larry has said over and over he's not worried about next year.
                      I like that trade. Pau Gasol would be a difference maker off the bench. I do worry about the backup wing. Butler has played well, but I don't know if he is ready for the pressure of a deep playoff run. Almost too late to throw Butler in that role
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        We don't post up Scola because every time he dribbles, he turns the ball over
                        We don't post up Scola because he's playing the pick and pop role that Hansbrough played last year. If we are concerned about limiting turnovers, then Lance and Paul need to be at the center of that investigation.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                          Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                          I dont feel that its fair to say that Danny has regressed, his production is much more than it has been the past two years... I would say that he has improved simply by being on the floor... I also agree that it is not much to expect that Danny will approach his production of the past, but not this year, not on this team... I think that he will be much improved next year, similarly to how those coming off of major knee injuries typically dont return to form until the second season...
                          I hope you are correct. I am a Granger fan, and want him to succeed wherever he plays. I honestly feel that Bird wanted more out of Danny than what he is getting this season
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                            Lowe is a hack, so I wouldn't read too much into it. ESPN pays anyone to say anything, as long as they say it ignorantly with confidence

                            Comment


                            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              I hope you are correct. I am a Granger fan, and want him to succeed wherever he plays. I honestly feel that Bird wanted more out of Danny than what he is getting this season
                              I am guessing Bird saw this coming, at least to a certain extent. This team, while publicly beating the drum of wanting the #1 seed, is in title or bust mode. I think Bird wants Danny to work through his kinks in the regular season and be a contributor in the playoffs--when we really need him.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                We don't post up Scola because he's playing the pick and pop role that Hansbrough played last year. If we are concerned about limiting turnovers, then Lance and Paul need to be at the center of that investigation.
                                Scola is good in the post whenever its ISO. Luis has only one guy near him, and everybody else gets out of the way. He does have issues when he dribbles in traffic though.
                                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X