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

What's the situation with the wings?

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

  • What's the situation with the wings?

    As of the end of the season, the Pacers have the following players at the 2 and 3 spots:

    Granger
    Shawne
    Rawle
    Dunleavy
    Quis

    Dunleavy and Quis aren't going anywhere, they're untradable. Rawle's contract is up, but I'd like to see us renew it. He's fine as a third-string guy, and he showed some improvement this year.

    With Granger and Shawne, though, I really don't know what to do. You can go back and forth on who's going to be the better pro, but given the fact that Dun and Quis aren't going anywhere, I really don't see a place on this team for both guys. And they're two of our most tradable assets. If we're not going to be actively looking to shop Jermaine, there's not much else we have to make deals with.

    If you had to include one to get a trade done, who would it be?
    This space for rent.

  • #2
    Re: What's the situation with the wings?

    If we really had to give away either Granger or Williams, I'd say Granger can be traded!

    I think Williams has much more potential and he's also showed in the last 20 (?) games that he could become a heck of a player. He can play the 2, 3 and 4 and has a great shooting touch. He definitely has to improve on the defensive end, but being only 21, he's got plenty of time to fix this area of his game.

    Start Williams at the 3 and trade Granger for a young Point Guard (or this year's 1 Round Draft Pick).

    Though I really like Granger, I'd still prefer Shawne if I had to choose betwenn these two..

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What's the situation with the wings?

      The problem here is that out of all those players, Quis is the only one who is really a SG. I guess Marshall too, but he is a third stringer. The rest are all strictly SF's no matter how much we try to play them at the 2. We are simply too deep at the 3 and some of that depth has to go to improve our other positions, specifically the guard positions.

      Who do we trade? Beats me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What's the situation with the wings?

        Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
        The problem here is that out of all those players, Quis is the only one who is really a SG. I guess Marshall too, but he is a third stringer. The rest are all strictly SF's no matter how much we try to play them at the 2. We are simply too deep at the 3 and some of that depth has to go to improve our other positions, specifically the guard positions.
        My problem exactly.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What's the situation with the wings?

          What if TPTB decided to try Dun and Quis at SF and SG (the two hard-to-trade but decent players), while trading Danny and Shawne for improvement at PG and/or C?

          I don't want Danny or Shawne to go, just sayin' it's a possiblity...
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What's the situation with the wings?

            Dang.. I thought they were bring the sitcom back! These subject lines are killing me tonight!

            In all honestly.. I think somebody will be moved. Rawle will probably be gone. Dun Dun has a bloated contract, but I like to keep him anyways at least another year. So I'm guessing Quis, Danny, or Shawne will be moved for something

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What's the situation with the wings?

              I'm not sure how much value Quis has.

              Funny quirk about today's NBA: teams like players who can suit up.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                Were we serious about becoming an up temp team, we could keep both as we'd play smaller and try to get line ups that created mismatches.
                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                  I can't imagine Shawne's got much trade value at this point. He hasn't proven anything.
                  Danny is really the ONLY tradeable commodity we have that is worth anything.
                  Trade him for a comparable guard.
                  Don't want to, but we need to.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                    I would like to see us shop around Danny. I would think we could probably get a late teen early twenties pick for him (probably would have to add in our second rounder for next year). But teams that might be interested would be Cleveland, Washington, Boston, Orlando (Hill is getting old), Miami, NO, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Utah, Denver, Portland, Minnesota, LAC, and Sacramento. Now, which teams would want Granger that would have a low enough pick for us to get ahold of Conley or Law? Who knows....but I think we have to do something.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                      Rawle has shown me very little during his stint as a backup SG....I would much rather give whatever minutes that we have to Shawne.

                      In fact...I would tolerate seeing Dunleavy play the backup SG spot before giving Rawle some minutes.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                        Originally posted by LittleGiant04 View Post
                        I would like to see us shop around Danny. I would think we could probably get a late teen early twenties pick for him (probably would have to add in our second rounder for next year). But teams that might be interested would be Cleveland, Washington, Boston, Orlando (Hill is getting old), Miami, NO, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Utah, Denver, Portland, Minnesota, LAC, and Sacramento. Now, which teams would want Granger that would have a low enough pick for us to get ahold of Conley or Law? Who knows....but I think we have to do something.
                        I have noticed that people are starting to throw Grangers name around in a trade.I have no problem with that. I am very high on him and I don't think he's close to a finish product.I would only trade him if we couldn't aquire a starting caliber pg in a Oneal trade.

                        As far as what we could get.I keep throwing out the name J.Calderon.He's a young guy, I really like the way he runs a team and i think has a ton of upside.Who knows after there pathetic showing against the Nets maybe they'll be looking to make some changes.

                        As far as trading him for a pick and hoping we get Conley or Law.I'm not as crazy about that type of trade. Though i think Conley has the tools to be a star at that spot.I also think that he has a chance to be a bust.By bust I mean somebody who becomes nothing more then a career backup.He's definelty not a sure bet.
                        Acie Law is somebody who should become a good player not a star, not a bench warmer.A middle of the pack type of pg kinda like what we have with Tinlsey.I just don't know if I would be willing to trade Granger for either one of those guys.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                          I don't want to see either Danny or Shawne go. I'd love to see a coach be a bit more creative with players and start this lineup: Daniels, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal. You've got Daniels and Dunleavy as your co-PG's. Granger can guard the best perimeter scorer. Daniels can guard most PG's. If JO can keep up, this would give us a pretty dynamic lineup that would create lots of matchup problems for opposing teams.

                          If either Danny or Shawne has to go, I guess I'd prefer to keep Shawne. Danny's trade value would probably be higher and I think Shawne has more potential to be a go-to scorer than Danny, though Danny will always be the better defender. If you offered me a chance at a good PG (either a veteran like Calderon or Devin Harris, or a rookie like Law or Conley), I'd give up Danny and be pretty happy, especially if I could ship Tinsley out in the same deal.
                          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                          - Salman Rushdie

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                            It would not be wise to trade Shawne or Danny at this point. This team isn't going anywhere fast so they might as well let them reach their potential here, and then later on down the road if we need to trade them we can get some better value for them.

                            I really think that there are teams out there that might want Daniels. Minnesota is one of them. San Antonio, Miami, and Orlando are other teams I could see wanting Daniels. I think that we could get something done with the Spurs, something as simple as Barry for Daniels or a bigger deal like Daniels/Foster/Harrison for Barry/Finley/Butler.

                            At worst we stay put with the wings. If this team really wants to win now this is going to be an issue. If they really want to win that championship then we will do things right, build this team back up slowly, and probably keep things the way they are at the wing positions.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What's the situation with the wings?

                              Pshhh... Small ball. Let's have some fun.

                              Here's my lineup:

                              PG - Tinsley
                              SG - Dunleavy
                              SF - Williams
                              PF - Granger
                              C - Foster
                              -----
                              SG/PG Daniels
                              PG McLeod
                              PF Diogu


                              Sure, we wouldn't win jack **** but it would at least be fun to watch

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X