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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Outside of Granger, five other players averaged over 13 PPG: Dunleavy (only played 18 games), Ford, Murphy, Daniels, and Jack.
    Man, that's a list chalk full of offensive fire power. Listing the players he had to carry on his back, solidifies my point IMHO.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Man, that's a list chalk full of offensive fire power. Listing the players he had to carry on his back, solidifies my point IMHO.
      Again, that team had the fifth highest scoring offense in the league in 08-09. One player alone averaging 26 PPG cannot vault a team that high without some offensive help. It was not a good team, but it could score a hell of a lot of points.

      Did Danny have a supporting cast that would help him win a lot of games? No, this was a super soft roster that did not play winning basketball.

      Did Danny have a supporting cast that could put up some points? Absolutely. Ford/Murphy/Daniels/Jack accounted for about 55 PPG. That's a lot. Even rookies Rush and Hibbert were combining for 15 PPG. This was a bad team, but it could definitely score.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-27-2013, 11:18 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Again, that team had the fifth highest scoring offense in the league in 08-09. One player alone averaging 26 PPG cannot vault a team that high without some offensive help. It was not a good team, but it could score a hell of a lot of points.

        Did Danny have a supporting cast that would help him win a lot of games? No, this was a super soft roster that did not play winning basketball.

        Did Danny have a supporting cast that could put up some points? Absolutely. Ford/Murphy/Daniels/Jack accounted for about 60 PPG. That's a lot. Even rookies Rush and Hibbert were combining for 15 PPG. This was a bad team, but it could definitely score.
        Without a doubt, the system pumped the numbers. But nobody there was somebody you gameplanned for over Danny Granger. To stop the Pacers, you had to stop Danny Granger. Nobody's ever said "We can stop their team if we stop Kyle Korver."
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Thus, Kyle Korver is a superior player to Michael Jordan.

          I'm actually with you on this one.

          To be honest, I don't really like efficiency stats built around shot totals. I know they make Reggie look good, and thus we all like them, but the reality is that they're easily gamed by players shooting high numbers of three-pointers and (especially) free throws. If Reggie got fouled taking a shot and hit both free throws, then his PPS is artificially inflated because his "points" total went up but his "shot" total did not. According to that metric, a player could score, on a given night, 10 points on 2 shots. That's ridiculous. I'd be far happier if it was something more like "points per offensive attempt." That would drastically change Reggie's percentages (and Danny's, though not to the same degree) but wouldn't change Kobe's nearly as much.

          So I don't put Danny in Kobe/Wade/Jordan area. Pierce is a closer comparison, and if Danny's knee heals and he has a long NBA career, I could see him approaching Pierce's body of work. The first three, not so much.
          This is why I used three different statistics to show he was comparable instead of just one. A single statistic showing a comparison can be biased towards one thing or another, but if you take three different ratings you are more likely to come to an accurate conclusion. A points per offensive attempt might even favor Granger more over Kobe and Wade as he has a better FT% and a lower percentage of his points comes from FTAs.

          I agree about Pierce. He and Granger are good comparisons as far as ability in my opinion.

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Without a doubt, the system pumped the numbers. But nobody there was somebody you gameplanned for over Danny Granger. To stop the Pacers, you had to stop Danny Granger. Nobody's ever said "We can stop their team if we stop Kyle Korver."
            Although there's been a few times I've wondered if that should have been OUR strategy against Korver.


            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Without a doubt, the system pumped the numbers. But nobody there was somebody you gameplanned for over Danny Granger. To stop the Pacers, you had to stop Danny Granger. Nobody's ever said "We can stop their team if we stop Kyle Korver."
              I agree with this.

              Granger came of age with the likes of Murphy, Dunleavy, T.J. Ford, and Jim O'Brien.

              Paul George is coming of age with the likes of Hibbert, West, Lance, Hill, Granger, and Frank Vogel.

              Luck definitely plays a big role, and there's no doubt that Granger was surrounded by complete crap in the physical prime of his career.

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                I agree with this.
                So now you agree that Danny didn't have offense help good enough for opposing teams to game plan against? That's exactly what I said.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  So far it's been argued that Danny is old, is a one dimensional spot up shooter, has certain skills that are still NCAA level, is injury prone, has a talent base similar to Kyle Korver, is such a terrible defender he was benched at the world games, that he led the team in scoring all those years bc he played without talent and was coached by JOB, and that he could only muster a mere 18ppg avg when he did finally play with some talent and the team captured the 3 seed in the East under Vogel.

                  These are all actual arguments made within this thread. And in spite of stats and facts being presented to refute all of these claims, these arguments are still passionately being made. I'm curious as to why. If half of what you guys are saying about Danny were true, forget starting him--tell him to go home and let his deal expire. That player being described is barely hanging on to being in the NBA.

                  I understand wanting Lance to start. I don't quite understand not liking Danny, but if you don't like him--fine. But to constantly go to the extreme when talking about his skills and accomplishments in the league; it completely dilutes your arguments and credibility on the topic.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    ............... it completely dilutes your arguments and credibility on the topic.
                    And that's the way it goes on PD.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Would one of you guys that are arguing against Danny please let me know what it is that you are trying to accomplish here?

                      To a person most Danny fans know exactly what he is. At his absolute best he was a star player, not a mega star not a super star and by no means any form of franchise player. He has weaknesses several of which have been discussed ad nauseum on this board to which we won't contest.

                      At his normal (in other words not his absolute best) playing level he is comparable to Deng, Gay, Johnson, etc. He is not better than any of them but he is not significantly worse than any of them either.

                      You can not put bad player around him and expect him to raise their level of play, he's not that good.

                      Many of us like him for both his talent and honestly for the fact that he was the first flush of the toilet that was the early 2000 teams. In other words personality wise he was the exact opposite of Jermaine O'Neal, Jamaal Tinsley, Ron Artest & Stephen Jackson. He was a nerd who had some game and did not come across as a prima donna, coke head, nut ball or gangster.

                      So I guess I'm just totally confused by all of this.

                      I don't understand your final goal. If you are arguing that one of the younger guys deserves a chance to play over him, fine. But build your guy up, don't do it by trying to tear Danny down.

                      We have gone so far over the edge here that honestly a couple of very well respected posters are now posting what is the modern day equivalent of gibberish and the curious part about it is, why? What point is trying to be served here?

                      Are you guys honestly trying to say that Danny is not only not better than Lance & Paul but in all honesty he isn't even as good as Orlando Johnson? Nor was he ever better than Stephen Graham?

                      Please don't use the excuse that you are just trying to refute all of the pro Danny posters. At best Mattie in another thread (quite possibly while intoxicated) made a remark disparaging the anti Danny crowd (which btw, sadly that is what you guys have become whether you have intended to or not). Also in this thread in an effort to compare certain statistical elements Danny was compared to some of the all time greats. I understand the posters idea but I also understand where you guys would lose it over comparing Danny to these players, so in retrospect while it was not his intention to do so he was comparing Danny to them and well Danny is just not on that level (he even said that but by that time the horse had left the barn).

                      So please explain to me where are we going here?


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        So now you agree that Danny didn't have offense help good enough for opposing teams to game plan against? That's exactly what I said.
                        I agree that he was obviously the main focal point of any defense. I disagree that he didn't have offensive help, because he did have offensive help that was good enough for teams to worry about. 08-09 Murphy, Ford, Daniels, and Jack all had the capacity to burn teams on the offensive end. Jack's solid play was a huge reason that we won as many games as we did.

                        In 08-09, you didn't beat the Pacers by stopping their offense. You beat them by exposing their pathetically soft defense. We were 5th in PPG scored, but 26th in PPG allowed.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-27-2013, 11:35 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          So far it's been argued that Danny is old, is a one dimensional spot up shooter, has certain skills that are still NCAA level, is injury prone, has a talent base similar to Kyle Korver, is such a terrible defender he was benched at the world games, that he led the team in scoring all those years bc he played without talent and was coached by JOB, and that he could only muster a mere 18ppg avg when he did finally play with some talent and the team captured the 3 seed in the East under Vogel.

                          These are all actual arguments made within this thread. And in spite of stats and facts being presented to refute all of these claims, these arguments are still passionately being made. I'm curious as to why. If half of what you guys are saying about Danny were true, forget starting him--tell him to go home and let his deal expire. That player being described is barely hanging on to being in the NBA.

                          I understand wanting Lance to start. I don't quite understand not liking Danny, but if you don't like him--fine. But to constantly go to the extreme when talking about his skills and accomplishments in the league; it completely dilutes your arguments and credibility on the topic.
                          The argument for Danny Granger to start is Paul George. He needs the help on offense and he can't rely on a inconsistent player in Lance Stephenson. This is why Danny will start becuase anyone with two eyeballs knows that Lance is not ready yet and the glaring weakness of this team was the offense.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Granger came of age with the likes of Murphy, Dunleavy, T.J. Ford, and Jim O'Brien.

                            Paul George is coming of age with the likes of Hibbert, West, Lance, Hill, Granger, and Frank Vogel.
                            .
                            In Danny's first full yr of playing with these guys he still led the team in scoring and was an important cog within the team. He would have been an important cog last year too had he been healthy.

                            I agree most of his athletic/physical prime came while playing with scrubs, but he was still good enough to be a very important part of this team once we added/grew talent. And if healthy there's no reason to believe he won't continue to do so.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              In Danny's first full yr of playing with these guys he still led the team in scoring and was an important cog within the team. He would have been an important cog last year too had he been healthy.

                              I agree most of his athletic/physical prime came while playing with scrubs, but he was still good enough to be a very important part of this team once we added/grew talent. And if healthy there's no reason to believe he won't continue to do so.

                              I don't disagree with any of that. I was trying to make a pro-Granger post and be fair to him by saying that PG is coming of age with a cast of players that are superior to what Granger had five years ago.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-27-2013, 11:37 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Granger is no better than a pre-injury Dunleavy....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X