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

George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

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

  • #31
    Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    I'm going to repeat what I've been saying for a while the only reason the Pacers are starting Danny is because he makes 14mil and also because he keeps repeating that he wants to be the starter and they probably don't want to make him unhappy.



    http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/1...to-bench-woes/

    That's similar to what Iverson said many times and people destroyed him.
    Or the fact that he's outplayed Lance during the preseason both on offense and defense while bringing a needed dimension to the starting unit. It could be as simple as Vogel picking the better player.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      Or the fact that he's outplayed Lance during the preseason both on offense and defense while bringing a needed dimension to the starting unit. It could be as simple as Vogel picking the better player.

      Two quarters of decent basketball from Danny makes you think that he OUTPLAYED Lance? OK...
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        More of what Granger said:

        “And Lance, he’s more of a playmaker. So when he’s in the second group, I think he actually excels more. He has the ball in his hands, he can make plays. When he’s with the starting group, the ball’s going into the post or Paul [George] has it. I play off the ball a lot.

        http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/1...to-bench-woes/


        I disagree with DG, I think Lance excelled plenty well last year with the starters. I agree with you though, vnzla. It's obvious that Danny is petitioning to start in a not-so-subtle manner. I prefer Lance's team first quotes when he's asked about it.
        Lance played very well as the 5th option last year but the truth is that he is way better when he has the ball in his hands. Lance is also a better playmaker than Danny. On the other hand, Danny is a much better off ball player mainly due to his superior shooting.

        I was thinking about starting a thread and comparing the pros and cons of having Lance (or Danny) starting, actually.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Lance played very well as the 5th option last year but the truth is that he is way better when he has the ball in his hands. Lance is also a better playmaker than Danny. On the other hand, Danny is a much better off ball player mainly due to his superior shooting.

          I was thinking about starting a thread and comparing the pros and cons of having Lance (or Danny) starting, actually.
          First off, your thread idea is exceptional. I would go one step further. I would also do the pros and cons of each player in the second unit. I would not be surprised if the results showed that each player has decent value, although used differently, regardless of which lineup they are in.

          So many on here, particularly those in the Lance camp, state that Lance is so much more dangerous offensively when the ball is in his hands and he can create. It is also stated that the ball shouldn't be in Danny's hands because bad things sometimes happen if he attempts to create. It is often stated that Danny is one dimensional and only plays well when he limits himself to the role of a shooter.

          I suppose Granger is lobbying with his statement. But I would ask, is he really stating anything that is not an obvious truth? I don't think so, especially since those in the Lance camp have stated essentially the same thing regarding observations about each player's offensive value in the starting lineup.

          Please proceed with your thread idea. It may help resolve all the differences. Or, I suppose that it could serve as a catalyst for the "remainder of hell" to break loose.
          Last edited by beast23; 10-20-2013, 10:27 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            More of what Granger said:

            “And Lance, he’s more of a playmaker. So when he’s in the second group, I think he actually excels more. He has the ball in his hands, he can make plays. When he’s with the starting group, the ball’s going into the post or Paul [George] has it. I play off the ball a lot.

            http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/1...to-bench-woes/


            I disagree with DG, I think Lance excelled plenty well last year with the starters. I agree with you though, vnzla. It's obvious that Danny is petitioning to start in a not-so-subtle manner. I prefer Lance's team first quotes when he's asked about it.
            I don't understand your thoughts here. Danny never said Lance didn't excel last year, he said "excel more". So you are disagreeing with something that was never said.

            I don't really think either Lance's are Danny's are fundamentally different. The difference being Lance just gave a straight forward politically correct response, which is probably for the best as Lance hasn't shown the ability to be a good public speaker yet, and Danny made a logical argument, that 90% of people on here actually agree with, as to what he thinks is best to the team. Don't get caught up in your predefined opinion of how all NBA players think that you miss what is actually being said. Just because he is arguing for him to start does not mean it is out of selfishness.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

              Thing is, if Granger can't start, I STILL don't want Lance to start. I don't like the fifth option, the guy who's role is to sit in the corner, to be a non-shooter.

              I'd rather have OJ or even Solomon Hill if he can hit shots start if Granger can't.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                What Granger has said about himself and Lance is fairly obvious stuff that we have all observed.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                  I mean this is basketball 101 ****, and for anyone to argue it is kind of ridiculous. Which is better off the ball, a deadeye shooter? Or a guy who's only offensive contribution has been fastbreaks?? Danny and Lance's game can't be farther apart. Pretty hilarious it has gotten to the beat that Lance is now "teamfirst" and Granger isn't because Granger is talking about a simple concept we all learned in middle school. Shooters spread the court.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                    No one thinks for a moment that Granger might be really excited, that for the first time in his career he gets to just sit in the corner and wait for open looks? Instead of forcing bad shots against a defense focused on him??? Danny finally gets the role he was made for and because he played a role he was never meant for his entire career, you want to hold it against him.

                    ok.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                      What Danny said was basketball 101, as mattie pointed out.

                      Lance isn't a shooter. The starting lineup clearly needs a shooter. The bench could probably use someone who can create off the dribble, and run the break.

                      And I don't think Danny has to petition to start. I think if he's healthy, it's obvious to most of us who should start. (For basketball reasons and for experience reasons.) It's much better to have a ball handler come off the bench than a 3/4 who plays off the ball.

                      *this is assuming Danny's perfectly healthy

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                        There's not going to be many open looks and easy baskets when the guards and SF are better turning the ball over than passing it. That's just the fact. George, Paul and Danny are all good players but none are strong play makers. We do need better shooting, but we also need better passing. Forget the past with Granger and look at who can help our players get better looks. Then you have Paul George having to chase around the SG instead of playing safety in the middle escorting guys right into Hibbert. Ask yourself for a moment why our defense was so good with Lance in the starting unit.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          There's not going to be many open looks and easy baskets when the guards and SF are better turning the ball over than passing it. That's just the fact. George, Paul and Danny are all good players but none are strong play makers. We do need better shooting, but we also need better passing. Forget the past with Granger and look at who can help our players get better looks. Then you have Paul George having to chase around the SG instead of playing safety in the middle escorting guys right into Hibbert. Ask yourself for a moment why our defense was so good with Lance in the starting unit.
                          Again, nearly everything you said is simply false.

                          George Hill isn't Chris Paul, but he's a fine play maker averaging 5 assists and NEVER turning the ball over. Hill doesn't turn the ball over. Neither does Granger. PG will have the ball in his hands no matter what. Are you suggesting the Pacers need to CHANGE the offense and not have the ball in PG's hands??? Then argue that-

                          This mythical idea that SF's play closer to the basket is absurd. Please name me 1 SF in the NBA that plays closer to the basket so PG can play safety in the middle?

                          What about all the top SF's that PG has to defend?? LBJ, Durant, 'Melo, Gay, etc, he's playing safety when he defends those players?? Or is he following them all over the court???

                          Or what about when he's defending James Harden, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade??

                          Your argument depends on the belief that when playing SF, PG defends EVERY SF opponent. FALSE. He defends the best wing player no matter if he's at the 2 or the 3. Your argument depends on the belief that when PG IS playing the SF position, he is playing closer to the basket and then playing "safety." False. None of that is happening.

                          I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! You make your argument that sounds good except for the part that you completely ignore reality!
                          Last edited by mattie; 10-20-2013, 04:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                            As I've stated in the past, the crowd that believes Lance is the best starter, has a beautiful fantasy imagining Lance slashing, hitting open players and creating points.

                            The problem is, that isn't how our offense works. At all. Lance hasn't done that nor will he as a starter. Just like last season, he'll play off the ball sitting in the corner with his thumb up his ***.

                            It's a beautiful fantasy, but it is just that, fantasy.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Then you have Paul George having to chase around the SG instead of playing safety in the middle escorting guys right into Hibbert.
                              I mean. Wow. Just look at that quote all by its self. I wish I knew someone that could ask Vogel that very question. I'd love to see Vogel's confused face when someone suggested the defense works because PG plays "Safety in the middle." Vogel's response would be something along the lines of "whaaaat?"

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: George on Granger: "He Looks like he's 98% ready"

                                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                                Again, nearly everything you said is simply false.
                                George Hill isn't Chris Paul, but he's a fine play maker averaging 5 assists and NEVER turning the ball over. Hill doesn't turn the ball over. Neither does Granger. PG will have the ball in his hands no matter what. Are you suggesting the Pacers need to CHANGE the offense and not have the ball in PG's hands??? Then argue that-
                                Paul is a turnover waiting to happen and I disagree on Granger. Granger has a poor assist to turnover ratio. Yes, George Hill is ok and protects the ball. But protecting the ball isn't helping guys get better looks. George is just ok in the assist department and "ok" isn't going to cut it.

                                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                                This mythical idea that SF's play closer to the basket is absurd.
                                I guess it could be a myth, but they are normally bigger players and many have a power/post up game. Like Melo. He is going to be in the paint a lot. But sure, they play a lot on the perimeter too. I just don't think they use quickness to the same extent as they do their length or power game. That means that Paul could far more easily cheat off his man. JMHO.

                                Originally posted by mattie View Post

                                Your argument depends on the belief that when playing SF, PG defends EVERY SF opponent. FALSE. He defends the best wing player no matter if he's at the 2 or the 3. Your argument depends on the belief that when PG IS playing the SF position, he is playing closer to the basket and then playing "safety." False. None of that is happening.
                                No it doesn't. Paul will normally guard the bigger player and Lance the smaller with some rare exceptions. That will normally be the SF. Notice that Lance guarded DWade and JR. Smith in the playoffs...and Paul guarded LeBron and Melo. Against Melo, I think he can play some safety. Against LeBron, no, I don't think anyone can play safety. But normally it will hold true. If Lance is on the floor, he will guard the smaller guy normally the PG. With Granger on the floor, Paul will almost certainly be guarding the quicker player...more often the SG, especially after Granger's knee injury. Granger can use his strength against Melo and LeBron but he'd have no chance against Wade and JR Smith. Making sense yet?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X