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

Granger out for three weeks

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

  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    I don't think that Danny's going to be strong enough this season to guard him in the post better than Paul can. You can see Paul's added muscle since last season, and Danny's been limited in the leg work he can do for quite a while. Not to say that he's never going to be guarding him, because to have success against LeBron defensively you have to throw him changeups every now and then. Offensively for the Pacers, I don't think Wade will do a very good job at guarding any of our guys. He's pretty good at spotting us 6-8 points a night on easy backdoor cuts and wide open 3 pointers every time we play.
    That is possible, it is hard to say for sure until we actually play them. Either way though it is more about is Danny v Lebron and Paul v Wade more favorable or is Danny v Wade and Paul v Lebron more favorable. Even if Paul is as good as Danny in the post you are in a much stronger position defensively with Danny on Lebron as Danny is much more capable of guarding Lebron than Wade, while Paul is just as capable of guarding either one, and if anything he is better at guarding Wade than Lebron. I mean two years ago he completely dominated Wade for two games, while he did well against Lebron he never even came close to dominating him defensively.

    Comment


    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      The bench doesn't suck this season, yet how many times do you see 5 bench players out there.
      During the Bulls game. EDIT: And even if they weren't, it still shows that it's because of the bench, not because of the opponent.

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

      And yes, I have an example from just the other night. Rose burned CJ a couple of times in the first half, then Frank decided to stick PG on him. PG completely shut him down in the second half. Yet it's far-fetched to think that Frank would consider who will be better at defending Wade in the playoffs between Lance and Granger? I mean, that's what coaching is, isn't it?

      Of course Frank is going to mix some things around based on match-ups. That doesn't mean that anyone is saying that we're going to completely nuke the philosophy of our team.
      Sorry, but that's not an example of sitting someone to match up with the opponent, seeing as how CJ stayed in the game, just guarded a different player.
      Last edited by Since86; 11-08-2013, 11:24 AM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        During the Bulls game.
        It's been very few times this season and will continue to be that way.

        Comment


        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          It's been very few times this season and will continue to be that way.
          Which even if true, has NOTHING to do with the original point of changing lineups to fit your opponent.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

            The one obvious example your're missing is when Frank took out Hibbert during game 1 and LeBron got the layup at the end. But that only strengthens MY argument, because Frank came back and said he wouldn't do it again, that he needs to have his best on the floor.

            If Vogel thinks Granger is the better option with the starters, which he obviously does/did considering his reported statements and the fact that Lance was set to come off the bench, I think it's a safe assumption to make that Frank views that as his best.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post

              Sorry, but that's not an example of sitting someone to match up with the opponent, seeing as how CJ stayed in the game, just guarded a different player.

              It's a direct example of him switching something around because of a superstar player. Of course CJ stayed in the game - we were thin the other night with Hill out. Why would he only limit playing match-ups to guys who are in the lineup? So he wouldn't consider a match-up when deciding to start Granger or Lance, both of whom are proven players if healthy? This is one of the best coaches in the NBA that we're talking about. And we're also talking about Dwyane Wade, a guy who has been one the best players in the NBA for a decade. Reports of his demise have been greatly exaggerated. If you think that one player is going to be better at guarding him than another, and that their won't be much drop off elsewhere, then you without question start that player.

              Of course he didn't sit anyone last year against the Heat. We only had five good players and they were all starters. But if this team is completely healthy, then it is exponentially deeper and there will be scenarios in which Vogel will have to play a match-up. That's not saying that we're going to change our identity. We all know that Hibbert-West-PG-Hill are going to be out there when it matters most. But does Vogel have the opportunity to play match-ups outside of that? Absolutely.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                It's a direct example of him switching something around because of a superstar player.
                The notion isn't switching things aroung, but rather switching LINEUPS around. A Watson/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert is still the same lineup, regardless of who they guard.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                  The one obvious example your're missing is when Frank took out Hibbert during game 1 and LeBron got the layup at the end. But that only strengthens MY argument, because Frank came back and said he wouldn't do it again, that he needs to have his best on the floor.
                  Which was an obvious mistake because taking Hibbert out completely changed the dynamic of the team. Hibbert offers something that no one else on the roster even comes remotely close to possessing. If you sit Hibbert, West, or Paul George because of match-ups, then that's altering the team. If you sit Lance or Granger, then it really isn't, and I'm someone who has always advocated for Lance.


                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                  If Vogel thinks Granger is the better option with the starters, which he obviously does/did considering his reported statements and the fact that Lance was set to come off the bench, I think it's a safe assumption to make that Frank views that as his best.

                  Which was all before Lance exploded to play the best basketball of his career while Danny continues to sit in a suit.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    The notion isn't switching things aroung, but rather switching LINEUPS around. A Watson/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert is still the same lineup, regardless of who they guard.

                    Well we've been using this same lineup with Lance for a year, so I just fail to see how using it at any time would throw a wrench into anything, even if Granger comes back to play solid ball.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Which was all before Lance exploded to play the best basketball of his career while Danny continues to sit in a suit.
                      I remember that being said during the summer, when this conversation kicked off. So if Lance was playing his best basketball during the playoffs, and Vogel was still going to start Danny, why would we think Lance's best basketball two weeks into the season is suddenly going to change it?

                      This is the problem, which I've said a couple of times. The decision between Lance and Danny is like being asked if you want NY strip or T-bone. You'd be happy with either. Yet some look at it like it's NY strip or Kibbles N Bits. I originally made that comparison to my GF, and used NY strip or filet mignon and she was more worried about who I thought was the filet mignon. My first thought was "Have you been secretly posting on PD?" I'm happy with Lance starting. I'd be happy with Danny starting.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I remember that being said during the summer, when this conversation kicked off. So if Lance was playing his best basketball during the playoffs, and Vogel was still going to start Danny, why would we think Lance's best basketball two weeks into the season is suddenly going to change it?
                        That's a good point, but this level Lance is at now is way above where he was last season. The better he plays, the harder he makes it on Vogel to take him out of the lineup, IMO.

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                        This is the problem, which I've said a couple of times. The decision between Lance and Danny is like being asked if you want NY strip or T-bone. You'd be happy with either. Yet some look at it like it's NY strip or Kibbles N Bits. I originally made that comparison to my GF, and used NY strip or filet mignon and she was more worried about who I thought was the filet mignon. My first thought was "Have you been secretly posting on PD?" I'm happy with Lance starting. I'd be happy with Danny starting.

                        True, and that's probably why everyone should take a step back and chill while enjoying the fact that no matter what, this team is going to be pushing for 60 or so wins and an NBA Finals. But the fact that they are both good if healthy is exactly why I think Vogel could potentially switch things around at times because of match-ups. All I'm saying is that if this team is 100% healthy, he's going to have options available this postseason that he didn't have last year when we basically only had 5 good players.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                          And those options shouldn't be dependent on what the other team is doing. Figure out your best lineup, and run with it. Make them adjust to you.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            And those options shouldn't be dependent on what the other team is doing. Figure out your best lineup, and run with it. Make them adjust to you.

                            If you think that one player is better suited to guard D-Wade, then you absolutely throw him out there. I think it would be borderline coaching malpractice not to (sarcasm). Wade hasn't done much adjusting to others in the course of his career. Agree to disagree I guess.

                            Now you certainly make Miami adjust to our physical D that centers around Hibbert and PG, no doubt about that. Pulling Hibbert last year was a terrible mistake because it changed the entire identity of our team in the most crucial play of the season. But should you make adjustments to them in areas where they have an advantage (HOF top 10 player in the league)? Absolutely. This is the same sort of philosophy Vogel used when he put PG on Rose. If he's going to make an adjustment within a lineup based on a superstar opponent, then I don't think it's that big of a leap to think that he might make a lineup adjustment in certain situations.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-08-2013, 12:16 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                              I think Danny would guard LeBron so... PG did the best job he could do, but LeBron still averaged 29pts on 51% shooting, which was the most points he scored in a playoff series last year, and it was his second highest fg% only behind his 62.7fg% exhibition against the Bucks.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger out for three weeks

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                If you think that one player is better suited to guard D-Wade, then you absolutely throw him out there. I think it would be borderline coaching malpractice not to (sarcasm). Wade hasn't done much adjusting to others in the course of his career. Agree to disagree I guess.

                                Now you certainly make Miami adjust to our physical D that centers around Hibbert and PG, no doubt about that. Pulling Hibbert last year was a terrible mistake because it changed the entire identity of our team in the most crucial play of the season. But should you make adjustments to them in areas where they have an advantage (HOF top 10 player in the league)? Absolutely. This is the same sort of philosophy Vogel used when he put PG on Rose. If he's going to make an adjustment within a lineup based on a superstar opponent, then I don't think it's that big of a leap to think that he might make a lineup adjustment in certain situations.
                                You're not wrong, you're not absolutely correct either. If offensively Lance and Danny had the same skillset, but defensively Lance could guard Wade better it's obvious that you play Lance more when he's out there. But if you like the skillset that Granger brings to the starting unit, then you roll with the mismatch until they prove they can abuse it. With Granger and George out there we can post up whichever player is on Wade. Wade is one of the few guards that Lance can't overpower. Vogel likes wing postups because you can have 2 bigs vying for the offensive rebound in addition to another close player.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X