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 traded to Philly

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

  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

    I get the love Larry is getting on this because he said yes but he said that he wasn't shopping granger and philly called him with that offer. He was right at the moment at least to take it. But let's not act like he had been working a granger deal with Philly all along and "pulled this trade off" when he himself said philly called him for it. So it sounds like if philly doesn't call in the last half hour. Danny is a pacer still

    Comment


    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

      (edited and infraction)

      But yeah too bad Granger didn't shoot 49% even in his prime, he'd probably already be the #2 scorer in franchise history. Too bad TJ Ford and Lance screwed it all up!
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
        (infraction quote)
        But yeah too bad Granger didn't shoot 49% even in his prime, he'd probably already be the #2 scorer in franchise history. Too bad TJ Ford and Lance screwed it all up!
        Hmmm. I wouldn't consider that to be worthy of an infraction. I will let the admins decide on that. I think it's more likely I get nailed for saying Vnzla would be partying...

        Comment


        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          If...if...if...if....if Danny would of just hit 49% of the shots he took....but he didn't.
          You're missing the point.
          49% doesn't make the Pacers drastically better because he was only averaging 7.7 attempts. Your entire argument stems from Danny making just under 3 shots be per game instead of just under 4. Danny would be shooting his career average if he just made 3.2 shots per game. So in a 30 game sample size, his first couple of weeks of struggling could easily explain this 36% average.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            You're missing the point.
            49% doesn't make the Pacers drastically better because he was only averaging 7.7 attempts. Your entire argument stems from Danny making just under 3 shots be per game instead of just under 4. Danny would be shooting his career average if he just made 3.2 shots per game. So in a 30 game sample size, his first couple of weeks of struggling could easily explain this 36% average.
            Nope.
            I filtered his stats for after his first 2 weeks. He came back December 20, these are his stats for January 4 onward.

            There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              You're missing the point.
              49% doesn't make the Pacers drastically better because he was only averaging 7.7 attempts. Your entire argument stems from Danny making just under 3 shots be per game instead of just under 4. Danny would be shooting his career average if he just made 3.2 shots per game. So in a 30 game sample size, his first couple of weeks of struggling could easily explain this 36% average.
              Your argument is based on him making imaginary shots, and blaming Lance Stephenson for not gifting him an easy shot. Granger has never been a high efficiency shooter, even at his best. Regardless, it's about what skills he brings to the table, which right now isn't much.

              It's not just that he's shooting poorly, Danny's entire game has taken a hit. He wasn't doing much else on the floor besides missing long range shots. He wasn't moving well without the ball, he wasn't getting to the line, he wasn't defending well on the perimeter, he wasn't running the floor, he wasn't crashing the glass or creating for teammates, and worst of all he wasn't playing with any energy. Only so much can be blamed on the injury.

              You claim Turner is inefficient and that is true, but he's PRODUCTIVE, which is what always gets lost in the efficiency debate. Danny wasn't productive or efficient enough. We don't necessarily need efficiency, we need someone who can be productive, and Turner is much better in many areas than Danny ever has been. Danny has never been a good passer or ball handler, and that is what Turner is good at.

              Being able to take the ball to the rim and finish is one of the hardest things to do in a high level basketball game. A lot of guys can shoot. Turner can do that, and whether or not he shoots a high percentage, that is valuable, and something Granger has never been really good at, even before the knee issue.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                Another thing I want to add....The Pacers gave Danny as much time as they could, literally right up to the deadline. I agree, Larry WANTED Danny to be a part of this run. He respects the game and the fans too much to just be ruthless with a guy like Danny.

                But he wasn't improving, he wasn't making strides, IMO. I think Larry was hoping to see some signs of life.

                And I also think Lavoy Allen is being slept on, cause he can play. It makes me feel great to know he could step in if something happens to Scola. He's got a really nice 15-18 foot jumper and could learn a lot from West and Scola. Don't be surprised if he's the guy that takes over for West in a few years.
                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                Comment


                • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                  I originally thought Granger could make a come back and be at 75-85% of what he was and that would have been pretty darn good. Now, after 25+ games I thought he was regressing rather than getting better. Danny had plenty of rehab time, practiced in training camp, played in the preseason, hurt his calf, then had plenty of time to get ready, more practice time. Really, besides a few games he never gave us much.

                  A miracle could happen and he regains form, but not likely, especially this season and next season is irrelevant.
                  "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                    As my ill timed look at Danny's stats showed in the Granger thread, Danny struggled a lot in back-to-backs and on the road, but was usually pretty decent at home. Not up to par, but much better. His 3P% at home was 38%. His 3P% with one day of rest was over 40%. This suggests that Danny's biggest struggle with his shooting (not finishing around the rim) was conditioning, and adjusting to the grueling NBA schedule. His struggles really didn't start until the west coast road trip. Prior to that point he was shooting well outside of a couple games which were bringing down his averages. In February in 6 home games he shot 50% or better 3 times, and 44%+ 4 times. He had a couple duds dropping his overall average to 40.4%. In those same 6 home games he shot 47% from 3. Also in February on the road he shot 23.8%, only made 1 3.

                    Danny's inability to shoot from 3 more than anything is just a matter of him getting re-adjusted to the NBA schedule, and most likely would not have been a problem at all in the playoffs. His inability to score around the rim is tougher to pin down the cause. May be he just doesn't have the lift anymore and never will, could be he is just needing to get the strength back in his legs, or it could also just be a re-adjusting thing. It is hard to say at this point, but we should know if it is option 3 by the end of the season. The other two we will know next season. Either way at this point in time it is too early to say he is done or a shell of his former self. It takes a special kind of talent to be able to come back from what Granger is coming back from for as long as he was out, and perform consistently. As good as Granger has been, he has never been that good. It has been slower than expected, but not out of the ordinary.


                    Honestly, I don't think this trade happens if Larry thought we would be able to easily re-sign Lance in the offseason. I know most people see this as a trade about this season, but I don't. I think this trade is all about next season, and Larry thinking Turner is a better back-up plan moving forward.
                    Last edited by Eleazar; 02-22-2014, 12:21 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                      Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                      right before Christmas, huh?
                      Not that it is really any of your business but he was kept on payroll through January.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                        Vogel on Turners reaction; “He's thrilled,” Vogel said, breaking into a smile. “He's on Cloud 9. He knew there was a possibility he could be leaving Philadelphia, but to land here, a place where players want to play now, and compete what we're competing for, he's ecstatic.”

                        George and Turners relationship George also is friends with Turner. They became acquainted during the pre-draft process in 2010, when Turner was the second player selected and George the 10th.

                        “We're great friends,” George said. “We talked yesterday and he's excited to be here.

                        “Evan is a big-time player and a player that plays well in big-time games.”
                        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                          How long does it take for a guy to get in shape to play 20 minutes 3-4 times a week though? He had 3 months to get in shape. He's an older guy and I think he's lost a step, plus I felt he was having trouble adjusting to his new role more than getting in shape, he looked like a guy who was lost most of the time. He missed a lot of time and it's been awhile since we have seen the Granger we used to know, so it's tough to compare him to his former self. I only saw a couple of games I felt like he looked like a valuable piece. I understand the sentiment for him, I had them myself despite not being his biggest fan, it would of been so cool to see him hoist that trophy with us. I liked him much more in his new role, I actually thought he was perfect for it. But he didn't look like the aggressive Danny Granger who played with confidence on offense. He looked timid, like he was trying to find his way, and it wasn't getting much better.

                          You can't take the chance with that deal on the table.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            No I wanted Lance to set up Danny, Thats what Lance is supposed to be good at, making everyone else better. Lance was supposed to run the offense in the 2nd unit. Thats not what he has been doing. THats just the truth right there and everyone on this board knows it. Lance's recent infatuation with his own play has also led to the team struggling to anything offense. So I'm well aware of Lance's overall contribution to the record.
                            You are dead on with this. Lance making himself the # 1 option with the second unit has proven to be a net negative for the team. He wouldn't pass the ball to Danny but really he isn't going to make anyone with the second unit the # option while he's on the floor. Granger easily could have averaged more for us if we used him right. We'll see in the coming games if it's the player or the system because I doubt if Turner gives us anymore unless Vogel changes the rotation to bringing GH in with the second unit like he should have 2 months ago.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              You are dead on with this. Lance making himself the # 1 option with the second unit has proven to be a net negative for the team. He wouldn't pass the ball to Danny but really he isn't going to make anyone with the second unit the # option while he's on the floor. Granger easily could have averaged more for us if we used him right. We'll see in the coming games if it's the player or the system because I doubt if Turner gives us anymore unless Vogel changes the rotation to bringing GH in with the second unit like he should have 2 months ago.
                              I really thought at the time it was about giving lance enough opportunities to make the all start team. However he's continued that style of play, lance is out there to get his stats up and get as big of a contract as he can. I don't blame him for that one bit.

                              Our coach needs to do a better job of reeling him in to play how he was playing at the beginning of the season. I hope lance can make the adjustment as I love what lance brings but I know realistically he is playing to win but he's playing for a big payday as well.

                              getting turner is great but our weakness still remain in the carelessness and 1-1 ball the starting unit has been playing.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                How long does it take for a guy to get in shape to play 20 minutes 3-4 times a week though? He had 3 months to get in shape..
                                We aren't talking about getting in shape. Danny is in shape. We are talking about getting used to the intensity of an NBA schedule. The NBA schedule is exactly why there is something called "The Rookie Wall". When you have been on the sidelines for as long as Granger has, it can be difficult to get back in the groove. It can take a whole season for some. You can believe that he should be back to where he was almost 2 years ago, but that isn't reality. Granger is still well within a normal adjustment period. The second year after coming back from a major injury is usually the best indicator of how well the player has recovered, not the first season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X