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 Eleazar View Post
    People were talking about the same magic and chemistry about the 11-12 starting 5 too. I think chemistry is the last thing we need to worry about as it is something that both groups got a lot of praised for, in fact I think the 11-12 group got more praise for their chemistry than 12-13.
    Isn't that the same group that had "Mr locker room problems" in DJ and "I only want to start" in Darren Collison? I'm not sure were are you getting all your info from but all that info is wrong.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


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

      It's almost as if '11-12 season didn't happen for most of you. The starting 5 was the highest rated 5 man combination in the league just as it was last year. Once Hill replaced DC, we even kicked it up another notch.

      That year we were a very deliberate, yet efficient offensive team (due to our high FTA, and ability to score in the paint) while also still being a very strong defensive team as well. All that was missing from that team was another consistent star type of sure that could get buckets on the perimeter.

      Last season we relies heavily on our defense bc our offense wasn't quite as good--as in the bottom 3rd of a lot of offensive categories. You can't stop everybody, esp when you get to the playoffs. What was our team missing last year? Some consistent outside shooting/scoring to compliment our new star in the making (at the time) in Paul.

      I'm not sure where the fear of chemistry comes up with Danny being in the game when it counts because we were a more well rounded team during the 11-12 season than we were last year. I'm NOT saying we were necessarily better, just more well rounded and efficient offensively.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-28-2013, 06:08 AM.

      Comment


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

        I wish someone would compile and compare the stats of the offense of the last two year.

        I know I have compared our Effective Shooting Percentage. And last year we were 22 and the year before we were 23. Our field goal percentage was 43.6 for 26th in the league last year. It was 43.8% the year before for 24th (The whole league was down due to the many back-to-backs in a shortened season).

        Offensive Efficiency. Points per 100 percentage was pretty good. Because we went to the Free Throw Line (23.6 attempts for 8th in the league). And maybe that is how we are going to score points. We are never going to be a high pace team (possessions per game), strictly because we make people work on offense.

        The one stat that is going to be better this year if Danny remains healthy is three point percentage. Last year we were 22nd second in the league with 34.6%. Two years ago we were 36.8%. That is ONE DIMENSION () that Danny will help us in and we can't argue that.

        That is why we will be a better team with a healthy Granger whether he starts, finishes, or whatever. That if he is healthy, I think Danny will have the highest percentages since 2008-2009. But the percentage that will matter more than anything is winning percentage.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Isn't that the same group that had "Mr locker room problems" in DJ and "I only want to start" in Darren Collison? I'm not sure were are you getting all your info from but all that info is wrong.
          Chemistry in comparison the the Sacramento Kings? In comparison to the JOB era?

          No this team, despite a couple of whiners, have chemistry.

          Comment


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

            Regarding chemistry, I think we can all agree that this year looks even better than the last couple. Watch the Kevin Lee interview, if you haven't: he's pretty straight-up about this being potentially the best chemistry of any Pacer team ever. Also, I note that none of the remaining Pacers seem particularly broken up about losing Tyler and DJ.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              At best Mattie in another thread (quite possibly while intoxicated) made a remark disparaging the anti Danny crowd
              Well, I apologize if I did do that guys. I am a dick.

              Anywho, just gotta say it wasn't because of the booze, because believe it or not this drunken clown drinks no longer. It has been 7 months since I've drank. I quit. No AA or anything like that, I just quit. tired of self medicating. Anywho, carry on folks.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                I wish someone would compile and compare the stats of the offense of the last two year.

                I know I have compared our Effective Shooting Percentage. And last year we were 22 and the year before we were 23. Our field goal percentage was 43.6 for 26th in the league last year. It was 43.8% the year before for 24th (The whole league was down due to the many back-to-backs in a shortened season).

                Offensive Efficiency. Points per 100 percentage was pretty good. Because we went to the Free Throw Line (23.6 attempts for 8th in the league). And maybe that is how we are going to score points. We are never going to be a high pace team (possessions per game), strictly because we make people work on offense.

                The one stat that is going to be better this year if Danny remains healthy is three point percentage. Last year we were 22nd second in the league with 34.6%. Two years ago we were 36.8%. That is ONE DIMENSION () that Danny will help us in and we can't argue that.

                That is why we will be a better team with a healthy Granger whether he starts, finishes, or whatever. That if he is healthy, I think Danny will have the highest percentages since 2008-2009. But the percentage that will matter more than anything is winning percentage.
                The reason we had a better offensive efficiency rating 2 years ago was because we went from being a low turnover team to being an extremely high turnover team. Paul needed more motion than Danny did to help him score, so Vogel switched up the offense. I think it will be a change for the better if we can get the turnovers down and keep them down consistently. I think it helped all of our guards and wings last year.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Regarding chemistry, I think we can all agree that this year looks even better than the last couple. Watch the Kevin Lee interview, if you haven't: he's pretty straight-up about this being potentially the best chemistry of any Pacer team ever. Also, I note that none of the remaining Pacers seem particularly broken up about losing Tyler and DJ.

                  I would bet that at least one of our players has a run-in with Tyler on the court this season. He will foul Hibbert or West hard and they won't take too kindly to it.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Here's all I want. There are good reasons to want Lance to start. A TON of good reasons to like Lance. That's awesome. I like Lance too. If you (this is you-anybody, not you-McKeyfan) want Lance to start, why not talk about Lance? Tell us the things he does really well that you want to see more of. I'm down with that. But if you're all about Lance, why spend time talking about Danny?

                    There are definitely people on the board who think the Pacers will be better with Danny starting. I'm one of them. But these people don't, for the most part, try to make the case by trashing Lance.
                    I'll be happy to list them again. But I have been doing so for years, and have listed them specifically the past few weeks. For the record, this didn't get "anti" until posters started ridiculing Lance's game and Lance's supporters. You say "for the most part" that's not the case, but nonetheless the threads get stoked by those "in the least part" who start the discussions. I really don't think the Lance supporters brought on the hate and the challenge (but there seems to be some visceral Lance hate out there.)

                    What makes Lance a great player:

                    - He has an intuitive feel for the game that exceeds anyone on our team. Far exceeds. He knows where the players are, and can find the open man with ease.

                    - He also understands where to get the man the ball, and just what angle will be most conducive for that man to score

                    - Related, he has a great sense of where HE ought to be on the floor without the ball (and it's a shame that he is usually told to just stand in the corner.) This sense of his often leads to scores on the baseline, usually by passes from DWest.

                    - He has great handles which allows him to break down a defense and create space, loosen up the defense, and cause better shot selection for the team.

                    - When he drives, he has incredible strength and body control which allows for easy scores, fouls, and and 1s

                    - He has the ability to get his own shot whenever he wants it. So far, he hasn't hit that pull up jumper too well, but he also hasn't been given the long leash that others have been given. If he gets it and succeeds, watch out.

                    - He brings an energy that takes the team up a notch

                    - He has a competitive streak that arguably exceeds anyone on the team

                    - He is fearless. He will take on every player in the league including Lebron.

                    - His elite intuition also shows up on the defensive end. Just like he knows where every player is offensively and gets the angles for passing, etc, on the defensive end he knows just where to be, and gets the angles and positioning that is most suited for stopping the player in his sweet spots, or getting position for the rebound after the shot. He is VERY good at this.

                    - He is unselfish. He would rather pass than score.

                    - He has lightning quick hands and can create steals readily.

                    - When he gets hot, he can be a very good shooter. He has a track record for being a great scorer. He is perhaps just a green light and a little more confidence away from being a great scorer in the NBA.

                    - He has an excellent field goal percentage.

                    - At the 2 guard, he is bigger and stronger than almost anyone else at his position.

                    - He rises to the occasion. When the pressure rises, he gets excited about the opportunity (ala Knicks game 6) This is a rare quality reserved for great players.


                    I could list a few more. But perhaps this will get things started.
                    Last edited by McKeyFan; 09-28-2013, 10:06 AM.
                    "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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      It's almost as if '11-12 season didn't happen for most of you. The starting 5 was the highest rated 5 man combination in the league just as it was last year. Once Hill replaced DC, we even kicked it up another notch.
                      2011-12 was the short season I don't think you can make any conclusion with the stats that year, teams didnt have training camp, a lot of players were out of shape, etc, etc, etc.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                        Chemistry in comparison the the Sacramento Kings? In comparison to the JOB era?

                        No this team, despite a couple of whiners, have chemistry.
                        Eleazar is saying that the 11-12 season players were "praised for their chemistry" meaning that their "chemistry" was better than the players the Pacers had last season, what he forgot to mention was that in the 11-12 season the Pacers had a reported (by Wells) locker room problem in DJ and a reported "disgruntled" player in DC reason why the Pacers were so quick to kick them to the curve.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          People were talking about the same magic and chemistry about the 11-12 starting 5 too. I think chemistry is the last thing we need to worry about as it is something that both groups got a lot of praised for, in fact I think the 11-12 group got more praise for their chemistry than 12-13.
                          When I talk about "chemistry," I mean on court, not off court.

                          Lance's skill set, in my opinion, really greased the machine last year to cause better ball movement, good distribution, and patience for the right shot. Granger can also do this, but he hails from an era where we chucked quickly, often without much passing. So, imo, the on court chemistry was better last year then two years ago. jmo.

                          (Also, credit goes to Hill at point. Even though he isn't a great distributor, DC was terrible.)
                          "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 vnzla81 View Post
                            Eleazar is saying that the 11-12 season players were "praised for their chemistry" meaning that their "chemistry" was better than the players the Pacers had last season, what he forgot to mention was that in the 11-12 season the Pacers had a reported (by Wells) locker room problem in DJ and a reported "disgruntled" player in DC reason why the Pacers were so quick to kick them to the curve.
                            The reported disgruntled player as I remember it was an anonymous report when dunleavy was on the team. The dunleavy/hansbrough conflict caused several conversations about it. DC was the starter for most of the year and played better after he started coming off of the bench, especially defensively. In the playoffs that year he was excellent.

                            While I would agree the chemistry this past season was better, I would contend its not because the team had any real problems the year before. They just had another year to gel together.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              When I talk about "chemistry," I mean on court, not off court.

                              Lance's skill set, in my opinion, really greased the machine last year to cause better ball movement, good distribution, and patience for the right shot. Granger can also do this, but he hails from an era where we chucked quickly, often without much passing. So, imo, the on court chemistry was better last year then two years ago. jmo.

                              (Also, credit goes to Hill at point. Even though he isn't a great distributor, DC was terrible.)
                              Our offense didn't get better in practice. I think that better ball movement is more attributable to Vogel changing up the offense than it was to lance. Remember for the first half of lances starting role he was playing a very limited role in the offense but the ball and player movement was already improved.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                Paul needed more motion than Danny did to help him score, so Vogel switched up the offense.
                                You know, this is something I've wondered about for a while. I've always thought Danny would thrive given a little more motion on offense as well, but he was frequently just given the ball and told "go do something."

                                I think both of those guys will do well with more motion in the offense.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X