Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Honestly, I kind of started writing Granger off over time since he was gone so long. I lost a little bit of my love for him and was in love with our team as is. Our team is awesome. But, now that he's returned and seeing him on the floor... he along with Paul George are my two favorite players. This is Granger's 9th year with the Pacers, so he's been through it all and we've been through it with him as we watched him nightly. Hearing how he was always in the locker room and always on the road with team just makes me like him more. Then you add in the fact that he worked out with Paul George while PG was still in college and even told the team to draft him despite the fact the were both small forwards. Over time, this became Paul George's team and Danny Granger lost his spot. Despite all of that, Granger handed George his MIP award and has been a supportive teammate through all of it. With that being said, Granger is my favorite player along with George. I do love the entire team though from top to bottom. I like all of our players. But Granger being with the team for 9 seasons and seeing how he has carried himself, I've been reminded how much of a fan I was of him seeing him back on the floor. There was nothing better than seeing George and Granger on the floor at the same time. Also, I believe they're the only ones that wear solid yellow shoes. It's cool seeing how they're like brothers. I really believe Granger will pick it back up and start hitting 3's/mid range jumpers. Even if he's only a mediocre scorer, I still think he'll play defense to the best of his ability and it will be good to have his length off the bench.
    Last edited by TOP; 12-25-2013, 11:52 AM.
    "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Ray Allen would disagree. It's true that most rumors about anyone else have not been verified but the rumors about Allen have been verified.
      Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Doc Rivers were all perfectly fine with staying in Boston after Rondo had them a hair away from the Finals in 2012. Garnett could have signed with any team in the NBA, but he decided to stay there. Ray Allen was the only one who wanted out. So it's 3 against 1 when it comes to who wanted to stay with Rondo after that 2012 season. It was only after Rondo was hurt that the other 3 wanted out. They saw the writing on the wall that the team couldn't contend in the playoffs without Rondo.

      Why is Ray Allen the saint here? Maybe Ray wasn't perfect? Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that he (correctly) saw the writing on the wall and realized that he had a far better chance of winning another ring with Miami instead of Boston. Garnett and Pierce seemed to be anti-Ray after he left in 2012 (Garnett not bumping fists with him). Clearly those two seemed comfortable in continuing to play with Rondo. And I didn't see Doc scheming his way to the Clippers back when Rondo was still shredding opponents.

      Regardless, so what if Rondo sparred with Allen? Many great players have had beef with teammates. And Rondo clearly got along fine with Pierce and Garnett, who were both way more important than Ray in Boston anyway. Those two realized that Rondo made them look better and kept the team relevant.

      I think Ray was bent because the "Big 3" had gone from KG/Pierce/Allen to KG/Pierce/Rondo.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-25-2013, 10:23 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Ray Allen also wanted more plays called for him, Miami had to do that to him last year to make him happy.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Ray Allen also wanted more plays called for him, Miami had to do that to him last year to make him happy.

          Exactly. He might come across as this nice quiet guy, but it doesn't mean that he is some saint without an ego.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Doc Rivers were all perfectly fine with staying in Boston after Rondo had them a hair away from the Finals in 2012. Garnett could have signed with any team in the NBA, but he decided to stay there. Ray Allen was the only one who wanted out. So it's 3 against 1 when it comes to who wanted to stay with Rondo after that 2012 season. It was only after Rondo was hurt that the other 3 wanted out. They saw the writing on the wall that the team couldn't contend in the playoffs without Rondo.

            Why is Ray Allen the saint here? Maybe Ray wasn't perfect? Or maybe it's as simple as the fact that he (correctly) saw the writing on the wall and realized that he had a far better chance of winning another ring with Miami instead of Boston. Garnett and Pierce seemed to be anti-Ray after he left in 2012 (Garnett not bumping fists with him). Clearly those two seemed comfortable in continuing to play with Rondo. And I didn't see Doc scheming his way to the Clippers back when Rondo was still shredding opponents.

            Regardless, so what if Rondo sparred with Allen? Many great players have had beef with teammates. And Rondo clearly got along fine with Pierce and Garnett, who were both way more important than Ray in Boston anyway. Those two realized that Rondo made them look better and kept the team relevant.

            I think Ray was bent because the "Big 3" had gone from KG/Pierce/Allen to KG/Pierce/Rondo.
            I'm not trying to say that Rondo is a bad teammate or anything. I don't disagree with what you said on your previous post either. I just wanted to clarify that not every rumor about Rondo was a lie. The rumors about his bad relationship with Ray Allen was true. Everything else wasn't.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Ray wanted out for more reasons than Rondo.

              From what I understand, Rondo had more of an issue with Ray than Ray had with Rondo, anyway. Ray's issue was that the Celtics kept trying to trade him. So instead of wondering if he would be leaving Boston every year, he decided he'd rather know he was staying in one spot and help win a championship there.

              Can't say I blamed him for not wanting to be around KG, Pierce or Rondo anymore, anyway. They are the only three players in the league that make Bosh, Lebron, and Wade look likable.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                I actually think the final move Larry would like to make, if possible, is to acquire Kaman from the Lakers. If Danny is able to remain healthy I look for him to aggressively pursue the Copeland for Kaman deal....Kaman hasnt been particularly happy and we know Larry has shown some interest in Kaman before...sooo...I think thats who he has in mind when hes mentioned theres maybe one more move he might like to make...
                This would be a great trade for both teams. We could use the 3rd big and L.A. could use the shooting touch with Kobe out again. Both players have fallen out of the rotation for their teams. I'd love to see this happen if only due to the fact that we need to dump Copeland's salary next summer anyway but Kaman could actually help us. When I look around at West coast teams needing help to make the playoffs, trading with L.A. for Kaman would be my first choice, second perhaps trading with the Pelicans.
                As CableKC pointed out though, L.A. might not be willing to take on the salary for next summer any more then we'd want to.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  This would be a great trade for both teams. We could use the 3rd big and L.A. could use the shooting touch with Kobe out again. Both players have fallen out of the rotation for their teams. I'd love to see this happen if only due to the fact that we need to dump Copeland's salary next summer anyway but Kaman could actually help us. When I look around at West coast teams needing help to make the playoffs, trading with L.A. for Kaman would be my first choice, second perhaps trading with the Pelicans.
                  As CableKC pointed out though, L.A. might not be willing to take on the salary for next summer any more then we'd want to.
                  I could see this happening as a salary dump but it's not like Kaman would be a part of our rotation.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                    Ray wanted out for more reasons than Rondo.

                    From what I understand, Rondo had more of an issue with Ray than Ray had with Rondo, anyway. Ray's issue was that the Celtics kept trying to trade him. So instead of wondering if he would be leaving Boston every year, he decided he'd rather know he was staying in one spot and help win a championship there.

                    Can't say I blamed him for not wanting to be around KG, Pierce or Rondo anymore, anyway. They are the only three players in the league that make Bosh, Lebron, and Wade look likable.

                    He wouldn't have had to worry about that anymore. Boston offered him a no trade clause and he still rejected them. Maybe the damage from the prior trade attempts was too great to repair, but he wouldn't have had to worry about it any longer if he would have returned.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      I could see this happening as a salary dump but it's not like Kaman would be a part of our rotation.
                      The salary dump would be what would matter most but given a chance I think Kaman would outplay Ian for the backup center spot. He's at the least the best insurance policy we could find for the price at the center spot. I don't know how happy Kaman would be here even with Ians minutes, I think he wants to play to establish his next contract which is why he isn't happy in L.A. but he might feel differently getting his first chance at a title run.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        The salary dump would be what would matter most but given a chance I think Kaman would outplay Ian for the backup center spot. He's at the least the best insurance policy we could find for the price at the center spot. I don't know how happy Kaman would be here even with Ians minutes, I think he wants to play to establish his next contract which is why he isn't happy in L.A. but he might feel differently getting his first chance at a title run.
                        Kaman has not outplayed Robert Sacre so far. How do you expect him to outplay Ian?

                        The salary dump does matter if we need it but I'd prefer to get a young player as a 3rd Center instead of a vet who doesn't want to be a 3rd Center.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Kaman has not outplayed Robert Sacre so far. How do you expect him to outplay Ian?

                          The salary dump does matter if we need it but I'd prefer to get a young player as a 3rd Center instead of a vet who doesn't want to be a 3rd Center.
                          I think I saw him play twice earlier in the year so I can't go out on a limb for Kaman but I thought he looked good. No doubt that he's taken a few steps back in the past 3 years but I think he's still better then Ian just playing for the wrong coach. Either way I wouldn't care if we moved Copeland for the expiring contract of a player who was out for the year.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Kaman has not outplayed Robert Sacre so far. How do you expect him to outplay Ian?

                            The salary dump does matter if we need it but I'd prefer to get a young player as a 3rd Center instead of a vet who doesn't want to be a 3rd Center.
                            Sacre hasn't outplayed anybody you need to understand D'Antonis offensive system and stubbornest to understand why Kaman is not playing.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              I think I saw him play twice earlier in the year so I can't go out on a limb for Kaman but I thought he looked good. No doubt that he's taken a few steps back in the past 3 years but I think he's still better then Ian just playing for the wrong coach. Either way I wouldn't care if we moved Copeland for the expiring contract of a player who was out for the year.
                              Kaman still has some game left but he's not happy to be a back-up. He isn't happy in LA backing up Pau Gasol and that's why he lost his spot in the rotation by Robert Sacre who is happy to get an opportunity. If he is not happy backing up Pau Gasol in LA, what makes you think that he's going to be happy backing up Roy Hibbert (and possibly Ian Mahinmi as well) in Indiana?

                              I also disagree that he's better than Ian overall but you're free to have your own opinion. Offensively, he is more skilled than Ian, for sure, but I don't think that he has the same defensive impact (which is what we need out of Ian).

                              I also think that Copeland will come in handy when we need to rest David West more towards the end of the season or when we need some 3 point shooting.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Kaman blows. Dude's a net negative black hole that I'd never want on my team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X