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

Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

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

  • #31
    Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    See the thing I don't get is why guys like Paul George and Lance get a pass for poor shot selection, but Danny is like this chucker who shoots it everytime he gets the rock. Danny's game is the mid range J, either off the bounce or out of the post. His shooting percentages in his WORST yr are comparable to PG's this yr(and Danny even averages more points) yet he's criticized for poor shot selection?
    I don't think Danny is a chucker. The knock on Danny is that his FG% has continued to drop each and every year since 2008-2009. Combine that with the fact he has been, at best, an average defender...well, that's the issue. I do think he stepped up his D last year, so props on that. But he's not on the same planet with Paul George in that department. Danny is not far removed from being an average NBA defender...even today.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

      Of course I like DG33. But would I be sad if he was traded for pieces/pick that could ultimately help this team financially and player wise, then no. Would I be sad if he's not traded. Absolutely not.
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

        Reggie sucked me into the Pacers franchise, and Danny wouldn't let me leave.
        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          What I hate is the Danny Granger fanboys, they act like Danny is the best thing that happen to the Pacers since the franchise open, talking about trading Danny or keeping on the bench is frown upon and the fan boys would attack whoever says anything about those two issues.
          There's a bit of a difference between someone having their objectivity slightly disabled (due to not wanting to see someone they've become attached to leave) and thinking said person is the best thing to even happen to the franchise. Has the term 'fan boy' ever elicited a positive reaction from anyone?

          I think you can acknowledge Danny's shortcomings while also feeling the effects of his potential departure. There is some middle ground (i.e. this is not the game of thrones).
          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

            This is such a weird question. Two options? The answers are uninformative. I like everyone on the Pacers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

              Of course, he gave us his best years when the team wasn't up to snuff outside of himself. He's still a very high level player and should perform admirably now that he has 2-3 other players on the team that are as good or better than himself. I've been encouraged by the last two games, I thought he would be rusty for a little bit longer, and his defense on Rudy Gay last night, especially in the post, is a microcosm of what he can bring on that end of the floor in addition to what we all know he can bring in the scoring department.
              Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                I thought it would've been Croz and Vnzla. However, now I am enlightened as to why Vnzla wanted Monta. The more you know.
                Senior at the University of Louisville.
                Greenfield ---> The Ville

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                  Honestly I believe that if the 2005 draft could be done over again it would be as follows.

                  1. Chris Paul
                  2. Deron Williams
                  3. Danny Granger
                  4. David Lee
                  5. Monta Ellis

                  Obviously drafting is equal parts art & science and frankly I have come to the conclusion that the people making the decisions for us are very good at their jobs.

                  Now you can make an argument that Lee now would be over Granger but I think career wise Danny has been better long term but he is aging more rapidly than Lee.

                  Either way sure is a far cry from the 17th pick where we got him and really he is only behind two of the greatest point guards to play in this day and age.

                  Don’t think that Toronto wouldn’t like to go back and have a do over with picking Joey Graham at 16? Or Minnesota taking Rashard McCants at 14? Or the Warriors taking Ike Diogu at 9?

                  Between Danny being a top 3 IMO but no more than top 5 by almost anyone’s account in that draft and Roy being a top 10 player and for all intents and purposes Paul being a top 2 if not the number 1 player for him draft its no wonder our team is in the condition it is in. Wise drafting goes so much further than tanking that it’s almost comical.

                  I am not ashamed to admit that I am a Danny Granger fan. For every reason that has ever been listed before and for that article that told me that Danny is gracefully accepting that he is now entering the sunset of his career, even if it is a few years away.

                  I just want to enjoy the time we have left together whether it be the rest of this season or for seasons to come (I hope the latter honestly) and I just no longer want to care about the rivalry between Danny & Paul because it only exists on the internet where people need to conflict with one another.


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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    I like Danny the person, I'm not a huge Danny the player fan, he plays D when he wants to and takes a lot of bad shots(even this year).

                    What I hate is the Danny Granger fanboys, they act like Danny is the best thing that happen to the Pacers since the franchise open, talking about trading Danny or keeping on the bench is frown upon and the fan boys would attack whoever says anything about those two issues.
                    I know we have talked about this before but in all honesty who besides the one poster on here would you consider to be this way? I would hope that after all of this time you know that while I love Granger I am more than willing to concede that he has faults and does not fall into the superstar category. I'm not like Olblu in the fact that I have a slightly lower standard for what is a star in the NBA so in my definition Danny fits the star category but I understand where he is coming from and respect that he has a very high standard for what is a star and he seems to be consistent about that so I have no complaint there.

                    I hope you don't mistake someone defending Danny against attacks as being a love struck fan boy.


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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I don't think Danny is a chucker. The knock on Danny is that his FG% has continued to drop each and every year since 2008-2009. Combine that with the fact he has been, at best, an average defender...well, that's the issue. I do think he stepped up his D last year, so props on that. But he's not on the same planet with Paul George in that department. Danny is not far removed from being an average NBA defender...even today.
                      I agree with this 100%. My argument wasnt that Danny is better, bc he's not at all. I was talking merely in FGA and shot selection.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        15fga a game is far from chucking more than ever.
                        "As much as," is a phrase meaning equivalence, not an increase as your phrase MORE THAN would indicate. Essentially you are quoting me and disagreeing with a statement I didn't make. Half the reason I barely post here is people seem to be unable to read without taking things in a direction they don't mean.

                        Danny Granger shots per game 2010-2011 season: 15.9
                        Danny Granger shots per game 2011-2012 season: 15.2

                        He shot the ball basically the same number of times per game, and yet the narrative on this board all season long was how gracefully he's taken a step back to give more shots to the additions of West and Hill. Clearly that narrative was not based in any statistical reality, making my statement correct -- unless you really believe .7 shots a game is a meaningful step back.

                        Anyway, Danny Granger has been a very good basketball player here. He hasn't been exactly what I'd choose out of a small forward of his talent level, but he's been good. Far better than anyone should expect out of a mid first round pick. I'm sorry preferring someone with more finishing ability, better shot selection, and a larger commitment to defense makes me that guy, but I don't feel my position is unreasonable. Like I said, I appreciate what he's done here, but I don't prefer his style or the fabricated narratives. Don't make my statements into something they aren't.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                          Originally posted by Dece View Post
                          "As much as," is a phrase meaning equivalence, not an increase as your phrase MORE THAN would indicate. Essentially you are quoting me and disagreeing with a statement I didn't make. Half the reason I barely post here is people seem to be unable to read without taking things in a direction they don't mean.

                          Danny Granger shots per game 2010-2011 season: 15.9
                          Danny Granger shots per game 2011-2012 season: 15.2

                          He shot the ball basically the same number of times per game, and yet the narrative on this board all season long was how gracefully he's taken a step back to give more shots to the additions of West and Hill. Clearly that narrative was not based in any statistical reality, making my statement correct -- unless you really believe .7 shots a game is a meaningful step back.

                          Anyway, Danny Granger has been a very good basketball player here. He hasn't been exactly what I'd choose out of a small forward of his talent level, but he's been good. Far better than anyone should expect out of a mid first round pick. I'm sorry preferring someone with more finishing ability, better shot selection, and a larger commitment to defense makes me that guy, but I don't feel my position is unreasonable. Like I said, I appreciate what he's done here, but I don't prefer his style or the fabricated narratives. Don't make my statements into something they aren't.
                          "As much as ever" is technically false...by about .7 FGA/gm..lol if you wanna look at it factually lol.

                          But seriously, i simply misread your statement. And I can appreciate your point of view on Danny. You think he should be better while I feel he pretty much maxed out his abilities (ability not effort) for someone that didnt exactly hit the genetic lottery.

                          But I wasn't trying to twist anything, just disagreed

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            talking about trading Danny or keeping on the bench is frown upon and the fan boys would attack whoever says anything about those two issues.
                            It's not the idea of trading Danny that is frowned upon. That's an interesting discussion and it's great to hear everyone's opinion on it. But once we've heard the opinions, it's not interesting to hear them again and again and again from the same people in multiple threads. Then it becomes something other than expressing an opinion.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              "As much as ever" is technically false...by about .7 FGA/gm..lol if you wanna look at it factually lol.

                              But seriously, i simply misread your statement. And I can appreciate your point of view on Danny. You think he should be better while I feel he pretty much maxed out his abilities (ability not effort) for someone that didnt exactly hit the genetic lottery.

                              But I wasn't trying to twist anything, just disagreed

                              Yea, sorry. I might be over defensive here at this point. I don't think he should be better, for the record, I think he's surpassed anything we should have expected of him. I do think he should shoot less and shoot only better looks...and bring it on the defensive end.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pulse of the fan base 3/2/13: Do you like Danny Granger?

                                A few years ago, it seemed like he would just shoot the ball and not play defense or play hard in general. Now he plays hard every play
                                Smothered Chicken!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X