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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Two grown men with cartoon character avatars arguing about a hypothetical million dollar sports contract for 2014.
    Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 12-23-2013, 02:17 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
      Danny will play a bigger role than Scola.

      Hes played more mins than Scola in his first two games back.
      I would hope so. The idea, at least in theory, is that Danny can score as a spot-up option, and DEFEND. Love Scola to death, and it's not for lack of trying, but dude is rough on defense if teammates aren't bailing him out.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion



        I don't have time right now to nitpick everything that jumped out at me in the last few pages, but consider this a friendly reminder to keep it about the facts and opinions and not about jabbing people or accusing them of not watching the games. Please and thank you.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          8/9mil a year for a guy that has only played two games in almost 2 years? is this real life? OMG, I'm glad you are not the GM.... Smh
          I tend to like your comments, but this one is a little off base in terms of context, especially since you leave out Seth's quotes and the background of his comment.

          Paying Danny 8/9 mil is pretty silly, yes. But you ignore the context of the conversation which include Sandman and Seth dreaming about Simon opening his pocket book considering the fact that we are now selling out games left and right. In that sense, perhaps we could start paying both Lance and Danny. In the end probably not, but that does not detract from their statement that perhaps Simon could open up a little.

          But you ignore that point and just say "Is this real life? OMG, smh, I'm glad you're not GM" just to be condescending. (Do you not see how this is condescending???)

          This is my whole problem with these threads. We don't read context or really even argue facts. We just pick and choose one liners to make fun of or be snobbish against.

          edit: Oh yeah, and the Pacers are 22 - 5. Sigh...
          Last edited by IndySDExport; 12-23-2013, 04:25 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Danny looked good tonight. Anyone with a gif of his block?

            Interesting to me how well Danny and Lance are gelling on the court together after all the hand wringing about which one would start. They have great chemistry already


            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Danny looked good tonight. Anyone with a gif of his block?

              Interesting to me how well Danny and Lance are gelling on the court together after all the hand wringing about which one would start. They have great chemistry already
              This is why I always insisted that chemistry wasn't an issue.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                I agree. I know it's not our money but OTOH they are sitting in a very rare position. They have the chance to field a team that for 2 more years could easily look like:

                Hill - Watson
                Paul - Lance
                Granger - Lance
                West - Scola
                Roy - Ian

                West and Scola might be close to the end (West talked like his current deal might be his last) and possibly Granger might be in that same mindset a few seasons from now, or certainly he'd be a cheaper contract by that point (he already will be way cheaper than 14m).


                You don't get hit with the repeat penalty until I think 3 years of being over the cap (I looked at this last summer and basically it showed you could keep Granger without the penalty). The tax would hurt, but measured against not just sell-outs but in residual income from the overall massive popularity of a dynasty team? You aren't just selling seats now, you are selling a generation of local fans on this team if you run 3 years in a row of what we are currently seeing.

                The team has walked into something very special, something that shouldn't be taken for granted. Once you get to a spot like this you want to put it in cement for as long as you can. Not so much in terms of long deals, but in terms of continuing to keep it together till it falls apart. Danny on a 2 year deal at 8-9, Lance at 8-9-10. It wouldn't be "we are now broke" level spending considering the benefit.


                I know I just spent 2 nights in an arena of fans chanting Danny, and I don't mean A55/G2, I mean the WHOLE arena. The fanbase loves Granger and they love Lance. They both will sell tickets and jerseys and all sorts of merch.
                If Danny shows he can stay healthy I believe this is maybe the one time to go over the cap. Keep this team together. Danny as the 6th man is the perfect position for him.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Speculation and predictions either way will mean less and less as reality plays out.
                  Yeah, because reality (stats) aren't just tossed out the window whenever someone(s) gets a tingly feeling up their leg.
                  Last edited by Since86; 12-23-2013, 10:51 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    If Danny shows he can stay healthy I believe this is maybe the one time to go over the cap. Keep this team together. Danny as the 6th man is the perfect position for him.
                    I am just curious what was the last team to not go into the LT and get a championship? Was it the Celtics or the Pistons? I honestly figure if an owner want a championship then paying the LT seems like a given to me.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      I am just curious what was the last team to not go into the LT and get a championship? Was it the Celtics or the Pistons? I honestly figure if an owner want a championship then paying the LT seems like a given to me.
                      It's going to be us, this year.

                      But there's no way in Hades to keep this current team intact next year without paying the luxury tax.

                      If this team doesn't win the championship this year, then there's no logical basis for Simon to make that financial leap this offseason, IMO.

                      I agree though with Seth, that if we do in fact have the beginnings of a dynasty (which starts with a championship, this year), it would be foolish for Simon not to bend his rule. You know, the whole penny wise, pound foolish thing.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Brett Poirier NBA ‏@BrettNBA 59m
                        Rumor: Rondo to the Pacers for Granger, Hill and a 2014 first-rounder. This is not true. Pacers don't even have its 2014 first-rounder.



                        Lol the Celtics would have to be doing drugs.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          I am just curious what was the last team to not go into the LT and get a championship? Was it the Celtics or the Pistons? I honestly figure if an owner want a championship then paying the LT seems like a given to me.
                          It looks like the 2005-2006 Heat. The 02-03 Spurs, the 03-04 Pistons, and the 06-07 Spurs all exceeded the luxury tax by less than a million.

                          Nine out of the ten champions in luxury tax seasons have been taxpayers. That's probably overstating its future impact though. Those three teams mentioned above probably could have found a way under the luxury tax if it had more teeth at the time. Three of the four teams in the conference finals last year did not pay the tax. The only luxury tax teams even above .500 right now are the Heat and the Clippers. I have a feeling it will probably be closer to 50/50 on who wins the title going forward if this CBA structure remains in place.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            The way I look at the luxury tax is this:
                            #1 It's not my money so I have no problem spending it
                            #2 If spending it makes me a stronger contender for a title then spend it
                            #3 If there's a way to be just as strong a contender for a title without spending it, then don't spend it
                            #4 But don't overspend on players just because you can

                            Seriously- What's a championship worth? What's a fired up, frenzied fanbase worth? What are national TV appearances and playoffs worth? What are mentions on all the national sports talk shows worth?
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                              It looks like the 2005-2006 Heat. The 02-03 Spurs, the 03-04 Pistons, and the 06-07 Spurs all exceeded the luxury tax by less than a million.

                              Nine out of the ten champions in luxury tax seasons have been taxpayers. That's probably overstating its future impact though. Those three teams mentioned above probably could have found a way under the luxury tax if it had more teeth at the time. Three of the four teams in the conference finals last year did not pay the tax. The only luxury tax teams even above .500 right now are the Heat and the Clippers. I have a feeling it will probably be closer to 50/50 on who wins the title going forward if this CBA structure remains in place.
                              To me there are very few teams that can get players on discount and the Spurs were one team that seemed to be able to get discounts from there stars and if you believe Dirk then there is another team in Dallas. The biggest impact to me is not the repeater tax (although that is huge) but the no sign and trade clause to LT paying teams. That to me is a huge deal in limiting player movement and stacking teams but I do see players doing the Heat way of building a super team by all having player options on the same year.

                              I still dont' believe it will be 50/50 though since owners will always try to stack the odds in their favor even if they think its only for 2 years.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Brett Poirier NBA ‏@BrettNBA 59m
                                Rumor: Rondo to the Pacers for Granger, Hill and a 2014 first-rounder. This is not true. Pacers don't even have its 2014 first-rounder.



                                Lol the Celtics would have to be doing drugs.
                                I'm pretty sure that's whats going on at the International Business Times Sports Department, since that seems to be where this came from.


                                Remember kids, when you want the latest scuttlebutt on NBA trade rumors, your first stop, yes even before BleacherReport, is the International Business Times!
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X