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

Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

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

  • #31
    Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
    We might as well talk about the chemistry that Reggie Miller brought too then.

    The Pacers have gone a loooooooooooong time without Granger. It's like that girlfriend you had (you folks HAVE had a girlfriend - right ??). Things are great, things are wonderful. Someone else comes along, you turn your attention away from one and towards the other. Months later, the old one comes back. You're just not that interested anymore. If you were, it would screw up your current situation. And then whenever you finally realize you are making a mistake - the new one is gone. Now, neither is a solution.

    Stick with the new girlfriend.
    That analogy is useless. It's only been a year, not a "looooooooooooooong time", and it's really not that uncommon for athletes to miss significant time and then step back into a starting lineup. The chemistry is there regardless of who the fifth player is. We had a good record last year, we had an even better record the year before. The chemistry isn't a rating that is reset and starts again at 0 just because you swap Granger with the guy whose role last year was to stand in the corner and wait for his defender to leave him. Defensively he had a bigger responsibility as the 2nd wing defender but he was still only the fourth or 5th most important defender most nights.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

      Why have a rusty Granger who is obviously having issues now, in the starting lineup right now? Do we want to risk losing ANY games when we're trying to nail down home court? Why not have him come off the bench until he's healthy? I will lay down my Lance sword and go with Granger in the starting lineup if he can prove he's healthy and has the rust off.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

        BTW, maybe I missed it but this thread really needed a poll.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Why have a rusty Granger who is obviously having issues now, in the starting lineup right now? Do we want to risk losing ANY games when we're trying to nail down home court? Why not have him come off the bench until he's healthy? I will lay down my Lance sword and go with Granger in the starting lineup if he can prove he's healthy and has the rust off.
          He's still shooting 47% from 3 and still provides the floor spacing Lance fails to. Yes, they're wide open threes. But they're in many cases the same wide open 3's that Lance gets but chooses not to shoot or shoots at a poorer percentage. On defense he can continue to guard the weaker wing because Paul George will be there to guard the better one.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            We're already seeing it. Granger does not have the rust knocked off and isn't going to use meaningless preseason games to knock it off. So instead, he will have to knock it off as we attempt to win home court over the Heat and the other contenders. Our starting SF will be rusty for weeks at least...with continuity being lost from the outset.
            Actually the rust was off and he looked good offensively, and on the boards against HOU and CHI.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              The Murphleavy group of few years ago had chemistry going too should the Pacers bring them back? of course not, the fact is that the Pacers starting 5 last year(with Lance as the starter) made it further than any starting 5 in the previous years(7 years?).
              Aside from the fact they made it one round later bc they played the Heat in the conference finals as opposed to the semis; our team was improved because of the improved play from Roy, West and Hill combined with the dramatic jump from Paul. Had the other 4 been as good the previous year, we may have had a different outcome in 11/12
              Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-21-2013, 10:18 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                Imagine Danny hitting 42% from three all season taking shots with space he could have only dreamed of a couple of years ago. If Danny is healthy, I believe that he will start, and he will shoot better than 42.0% from three.

                While I am making predictions, Lance will be the primary ball-handler more often than not when he is on the floor. CJ played quite a bit with Deron last season and proved to be a great spot-up shooter.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                  Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                  He's still shooting 47% from 3 and still provides the floor spacing Lance fails to. Yes, they're wide open threes. But they're in many cases the same wide open 3's that Lance gets but chooses not to shoot or shoots at a poorer percentage. On defense he can continue to guard the weaker wing because Paul George will be there to guard the better one.
                  Do you expect him to stop having issues with his back and calf? How many times coming in and out of the lineup is it going to take before you change your mind and cut bait?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Do you expect him to stop having issues with his back and calf? How many times coming in and out of the lineup is it going to take before you change your mind and cut bait?
                    Until he's no longer on our team or I think Stephenson's improved enough to be the better player in that unit. It's still his first preseason back from a long layoff. If halfway into the season he can't stay on the court AND he's not playing well, by all send him to the bench. But if he still is the best option for the starting unit, you keep him there because in the playoffs you want your best units, not your best for the future units on the court.

                    Even Derrick Rose has had some problems with his rehabbing knee swelling after games and he's both younger and playing closer to his normal self than Danny is. And remember he was deemed healthy enough to play before the playoffs even started last season, but he didn't personally feel up to it and the Bulls weren't rushing him. As of right now, I'm not too worried with his injury status.
                    Last edited by aamcguy; 10-21-2013, 09:31 PM.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Allow me to express my opinion on this debate now.
                      I feel that our 4 definite starters need to be our top 4 offensive options. Paul George will likely be the #1 option and Hibbert will probably be the #2 option. West will get his shots as PnP option or when PG or Hibbert are struggling offensively and we also need Hill to be aggressive and look for his shot at times so along with West they will probably alternate as our #3 and #4 option.
                      That means that no matter if Danny or Lance is the one that gets the final nod as a starter, they will be the #5 option. So, let's see some pros and cons between them in that role from the top of my head (there are probably more pros and cons and you're free to add your own).
                      Lance Pros:
                      1) He already had a successful season as our #5 option in 12-13.
                      2) His aggressiveness after a defensive rebound gives another dimension to our offense that no other player in our starting line-up can provide.

                      Lance Cons:
                      1) Not the best shooter in our roster and our power post offense requires good spacing.
                      2) His shot-creating ability goes to waste when he plays off the ball.

                      Granger Pros:
                      1) One of the best shooters in our roster.
                      2) He can play off the ball and provide spacing since opposing defenses respect his outside shot.
                      Granger Cons:
                      1) He has never played as a #5 option.
                      Personally, I'm not sure if I prefer Granger or Lance at the starting line-up. Heck, I even entertain the idea of Solo Hill or OJ starting and bringing both Lance and Danny off the bench. I'm only sure about one thing.

                      I want Lance to have the ball in his hands and create. That seems more probable if Lance comes off the bench in a Manu Ginobili role.

                      I agree with most of what you say but if Granger is healthy enough to play all year as a starter and I think it looks like he will, in no way will he be less then the #2 option. Granger is the only pure scorer we have and as such he simply has more opportunities to score because he can score in more ways then any other player. Lance is better at fast breaks but that's about the only way he scores. We need the shooting and versatility that Granger brings to the starting unit.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        Until he's no longer on our team or I think Stephenson's improved enough to be the better player in that unit. It's still his first preseason back from a long layoff. If halfway into the season he can't stay on the court AND he's not playing well, by all send him to the bench. But if he still is the best option for the starting unit, you keep him there because in the playoffs you want your best units, not your best for the future units on the court.

                        Even Derrick Rose has had some problems with his rehabbing knee swelling after games and he's both younger and playing closer to his normal self than Danny is. And remember he was deemed healthy enough to play before the playoffs even started last season, but he didn't personally feel up to it and the Bulls weren't rushing him. As of right now, I'm not too worried with his injury status.
                        So you would let Granger go in and out of the starting lineup until the end of January (half way) before you would have him come off the bench? Think that might damage our record and our seeding? How about his health, pushing it against starters? Why take all that risk when he ease into it and light it up against bench players? He will get his minutes and if he's truly the better player he would win the starting role by the first of January. You know they will both get a chance to play with the starters. OTOH, I could live with Granger in and out of the lineup until mid December but I still think it would hurt our record...and home court could easily determine if we advance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          Has anyone esle noticed the chemistry that the 1st unit built last year ?? With Lance suddenly going from somewhere on the bench to an important starting role ??.
                          Our chemistry was great in 11-12 as well. In fact, our starting 5 has ranked as one of the league's best both with Granger in 11-12 and Lance in 12-13.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            1. I think Lance should be the primary playmaker for the starting unit. That won't happen, but I list it for the record. PG is good at times, but he's not as good as Lance at playmaking and he struggles with turnovers.

                            2. Therefore, I prefer Lance in the second unit to serve as a playmaker instead of being the 5th option for the starters. Except for ....
                            That's an interesting reply. I have to say that I love the idea of Lance as a 6th man in a playmaking role. I do want to see him assume a playmaking role. But what makes you think that he is a better playmaker than PG? Not attacking your idea, just wondering.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              Our chemistry was great in 11-12 as well. In fact, our starting 5 has ranked as one of the league's best both with Granger in 11-12 and Lance in 12-13.
                              Our chemistry was pretty good in 11-12, but not this good. There was a PG controversy in 11-12. Collison lost that deal, and rightly so.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Official "Danny or Lance should start" Thread: Pros and Cons and Indiana's Offensive Options

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                It's just a topic that has been run into the ground. In fact, it seems like it emerges in every thread regardless of the original topic.
                                That's exactly why I created this thread. This topic always emerges and derails other threads and I thought that creating a topic in which everyone can talk freely about it would unclutter the threads that were being derailed.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X