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

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Is Granger playing tonight or is that knee swelling up already?
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This is entirely false. I hope Granger comes out playing like Michael Jordan. Seriously. The difference between some of us is what we believe is going to happen. I am not hopeful and I suppose that's something I should just keep to myself on this board.
    ummm....hello....

    noone can read 99% of your posts and come up with the the fact u hope Granger comes out playing like Michael Jordan...only the exact opposite...and you would do well to do some serious reflecting if you believe otherwise
    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
      If that is true when PG has a bad game you'd think he was the sole reason we lost. With this team being so deep you'd think PG wouldn't get criticized after every bad game. Danny who was relied on for offense still got off to bad starts, why? Birds comments the other day tells us why. So Danny brought no defense and got off to bad starts offensively but the new kid in town (PG) gets crucified on a deep team if he has a bad game. This is why there is a Danny vs PG dynamic on this board, Danny gets excuses for poor play but PG doesn't.
      You are simply wrong. PG doesn't get criticized after every bad game and he has never been crucified this season. The only people who complain at times are the ones that complain every time that we lose and they complain because that's a happy of theirs. Those people do to PG the same thing that you do to George Hill in every single game. They just say **** with little substance.

      Personally, I have been pegged as a "Danny apologist" by some but I use the exact same arguments for both PG and Danny (and Hill and Roy and West and Lance etc).
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        How good of a defender a person is perceived to be typically has a lot to do with how good of defenders he plays with. It is much easier to be a good defender when you are playing with other good defenders. Roy single handily makes every player on this team seem like a better defender than they are, the same can be said for Paul. With the Hornets West's defensive rating was routinely over 105. He comes to the Pacers and it suddenly dives down to 102, 99, and 95. George Hill's defensive rating also improved greatly once he arrived with the Pacers. It should also be no surprise that Danny's best defensive rating years are the years where he played with good defenders.

        Playing with the defenders and system that Danny had been prior to Vogel would have made Paul look average. Roy Hibbert's defense improved greatly once he who shall not be named was fired. During those dark years Granger was usually one of the better defenders on the team. Other than Daniels and Rush I can't think of any other player who was a better defender off the top of my head on those teams.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
          ummm....hello....

          noone can read 99% of your posts and come up with the the fact u hope Granger comes out playing like Michael Jordan...only the exact opposite...and you would do well to do some serious reflecting if you believe otherwise
          Someone reading and understanding my posts should come to the conclusion I'm pessimistic...maybe overly pessimistic, but not anti-Granger. I want the best for him and I hope he can help us.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Someone reading and understanding my posts should come to the conclusion I'm pessimistic...maybe overly pessimistic, but not anti-Granger. I want the best for him and I hope he can help us.
            And how many people have to tell you otherwise before you get it???? You even seem to relish in the fact that youre perceived as a hater....the two just dont go together...at all....
            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              You are simply wrong. PG doesn't get criticized after every bad game and he has never been crucified this season. The only people who complain at times are the ones that complain every time that we lose and they complain because that's a happy of theirs. Those people do to PG the same thing that you do to George Hill in every single game. They just say **** with little substance.

              Personally, I have been pegged as a "Danny apologist" by some but I use the exact same arguments for both PG and Danny (and Hill and Roy and West and Lance etc).
              Well, I criticize Paul a lot (at least I think I do), but it is only cause I have high expectations. What I don't do is make it into a bigger deal than it is.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Nobody is hoping Granger is anything but fantastic.

                Yes, there are people who are doubtful of it based on one thing or another but that doesn't mean they don't hope he's absolutely fantastic and the missing piece to put the team over the top for a championship.

                Either way, we're on step closer to seeing how it plays out.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

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

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  He wasn't the 1st option, though.
                  He is now and still plays all out on defense.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    DJ Augustin ,Gerald Green, Copeland, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, hell even Melo is getting great numbers on a crappy team, yeah is not a myth.
                    Copeland does not belong on that list.

                    1) He wasn't playing on a crappy team. The Knicks were a very good team last season that won 54 games and went deep in the playoffs. In fact, I remember that you liked them a lot and you considered them better than us at the beginning of the season.

                    2) He didn't get great numbers since he didn't get heavy minutes. He just proved that he is a very capable 3 point shooter (shooting 42.1% from 3 in the RS and 47.8% from 3 in the playoffs). He is doing a similar thing for us as well. He is shooting 40% from 3 so far so he is proving that his shooting was not an one-year wonder like you claimed. He just doesn't play a lot of minutes because Scola is a better player than him.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                      He is now and still plays all out on defense.
                      Is he coached by JOB now, though? He isn't. He is coached by Vogel and Danny played D under Vogel as well.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Nobody is hoping Granger is anything but fantastic.
                        Allow me to believe that certain people hope that he gets re-injured right away simply because they will able to say "I told you so".
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Nobody is hoping Granger is anything but fantastic.

                          Yes, there are people who are doubtful of it based on one thing or another but that doesn't mean they don't hope he's absolutely fantastic and the missing piece to put the team over the top for a championship.

                          Either way, we're on step closer to seeing how it plays out.
                          Ok, then why do they have to put him down and act like he wasn't a good player? Why act like all he did was shoot the 3 very well, but was otherwise not good at anything else? It is one thing to keep your hope in check, but that isn't what some of these posters are doing. Instead they are trying to say that Danny was never a good player to begin with. They aren't saying be cautious with your optimism, they are saying Granger wasn't a good player.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                            Lol....Crucified? Really? Really???? George Hill certainly has been drawing quite a bit of criticism lately and seems to be the new whipping boy. About the only criticism Paul George receives is with his constant complaining to the refs and diva-like actions at times-and justifiably so...other than that, he receives little to no criticism even though hes the new face of the franchise with a max contract and as such its natural to expect a fair amount of criticism when he doesnt play well.

                            Now what all that has to do with Danny is beyond me...Its like some of you dont understand that probably the biggest key to winning a championship is having them both performing at a high level and having the two of them healthy along with the other top 9 players.

                            You do realize they play for the same team, correct?? You know, YOURS and OUR Indiana Pacers????? Some of you talk about Danny as if he played for the Heat or something.....crazy nonsense.
                            Check the Pistons post game thread and tell me PG doesn't get crucified after a so called bad game. A few years ago when Ronnie Brewer dropped about 30 on Danny no one was allowed to criticize his defensive efforts in the post game thread.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              Is he coached by JOB now, though? He isn't. He is coached by Vogel and Danny played D under Vogel as well.
                              A few years ago we had a back to back series with New York, Danny said something disrespectful about how the two games should be easy Melo proceeded to eat Danny alive and we lost both games badly I believe. Danny cannot guard elite talent plain and simple, PG can though.

                              Also it doesn't matter who the coach is, PG played D at Fresno State. Danny as a leader should've played hard at both ends.
                              Last edited by Magic P; 12-22-2013, 06:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                                Check the Pistons post game thread and tell me PG doesn't get crucified after a so called bad game.
                                1) One of the main reasons that some people criticized him in that game was because his defense was poor.

                                2) Personally, the only thing that I said about PG in that game was that he didn't look healthy. I still believe that his finger is injured and thus I'm not going to blame him for anything. And according to several posters I am a "Danny apologist".
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X