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

Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

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

  • #61
    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    I think at this point "stones" = Panic.

    No need to make a bad deal.
    I wish we would have panicked with Tinsley a few years back.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

      But a few years from now do you expect Danny to be the next Tinsley?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

        Good point.

        I doubt he'll get chased around town, getting shot by Jehovah's Witnesses after attending Sunday evening service.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

          I can see the reasoning, I hope that tptb, don't hitch the franchise player wagon to him, both as a player, but even moreso as a HUGE salary.

          I don't think he'll get a team/cap crippling contract.

          I think if anything JO was a very expensive lesson in that regards.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

            I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we shopped him NEXT summer (sign and trade). His 19 points and 5-6 boards can be duplicated (and have been) by Mike Dunleavy. Not to mention Dunleavy is a much better passer and play maker. What keeps Granger closest to untradeable is his defense and ability to block shots at his position. Take away his defense and he's a lot more replaceable.

            His status on this team for 09-10 probably depends on how far Brandon Rush comes along. If Rush shows the ability to be a good productive starter this season, I think Granger or Dunleavy could be sent packing. I say this taking into consideration the amount of $$$ coming off the cap that makes us a lot more flexible. Because of Danny being a little younger, he possibly could be the odd man out. Of course it all depends on what kind of season he has too.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              I think we need to let a little more time pass before Rush becomes a starter...
              The Dun Dun kool aid is being drank again by DD!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                Originally posted by Merz View Post
                Yeah and then as soon as Wright gets old like Granger (25) and proves to not be anywhere close to a franchise player you'll be clamoring to ship him out for some unproven 21 year old athlete. I bet alot of fans can get behind that revolving door mentality.

                Is it seriously that hard for you to think of any other way for the Pacers to improve besides trading Granger and tanking. I bet you saw no future for the Pacers in '93 did you? (I know they never won a championship but that team in '98 would of ended the Bulls dynasty if they refs didn't swallow their whistles when Pippen manhandled Jackson all series)
                yea, when a player of jerryd bayless' talent falls to you in the draft, YOU DRAFT HIM, and then of course KEEP HIM. other ways include trading expiring contracts. i thought foster should have been traded last year. rasho imo should be traded this year. daniels can be traded. a new coach is needed. bird needs to go...granger just provides the pacers with the easiest way of acquiring talent. and for as much as you mock me in my desire for high draft picks, how do you think the majority of the teams in the nba get good? through the draft...

                and for the most part, reggie miller always showed the desire and leadership abilities danny granger lacks. even then, walsh failed miserably in not providing those pacers teams with the one extra talent they needed to get over the hump and win a title.
                Last edited by croz24; 10-16-2008, 11:58 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                  There are a lot of teams that have been picking in the top 10 for years and still can't get it right. Clippers, Bulls, Hawks. Tanking is hardly a proven formula.

                  I think there is some confusion with the concept of talent... there is more to being a talented basketball player than being a flashy scorer and a good athlete. I also think there is something to be said for aquiring players within a team concept.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                    Originally posted by croz24 View Post

                    and for the most part, reggie miller always showed the desire and leadership abilities danny granger lacks.
                    Im asking people that might remember, cause I was too young, but wasn't reggie considered kind of a punk his first few seasons? Hardly a great leader. That came later if I understand correctly.

                    What has Danny Granger done to so clearly convince you of this? He has only improved, constantly... Even if your right, what is the harm in seeing what he can do this season? Even early in this preseason he is showing an ability to get to the foul line at will, which drew the Dallas broadcasters to compare him to Paul Pierce. Before anyone jumps off a building, Im not saying Granger will be Pierce, but I am saying he is not done improving.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      yea, when a player of jerryd bayless' talent falls to you in the draft, YOU DRAFT HIM, and then of course KEEP HIM. other ways include trading expiring contracts. i thought foster should have been traded last year. rasho imo should be traded this year. daniels can be traded. a new coach is needed. bird needs to go...granger just provides the pacers with the easiest way of acquiring talent. and for as much as you mock me in my desire for high draft picks, how do you think the majority of the teams in the nba get good? through the draft...

                      and for the most part, reggie miller always showed the desire and leadership abilities danny granger lacks. even then, walsh failed miserably in not providing those pacers teams with the one extra talent they needed to get over the hump and win a title.
                      How about the Fieldhouse do you like it? Amazing why someone is even a fan of a team that they hate everything about.

                      Take the name Bayless and insert Granger in your first sentence and its the same thing.

                      Look at the Bulls, they got high draft picks AND acquired players like Ben Wallace and Larry Hughes, they went nowhere.

                      Your main mistake is confusing drafting high with drafting well.

                      Let's take the last several champions. Boston traded for veterans after sucking an inordinate amount of time.

                      San Antonio kept Duncan and added around him, but not with high picks, instead smart picks.

                      Detroit drafted Tayshaun the rest they made smart moves to acquire undervalued assets.

                      You simplistically think you have to tear it down and pin your hopes to a 6'3" two guard who fell to 11 in a mediocre draft.

                      This is my second point, your like Peter Vescey, say enough things and then only accentuate the few times you are right.

                      I hate to go off on a rant like this, but your a broken record, BAyless, bayless, bayless, high draft picks, trade Granger, Bayless, I'm always right, always right.

                      You over simplify things, it's not high draft picks that make a team better, it's good draft picks, it's not constantly chasing the greener grass on the other side by constantly making risky moves, it's making smart good moves.

                      If you unload Danny, what do you get? A lesser player and a 1st round draft pick, probably in the teens.

                      How is that not short sighted?

                      This type of knee jerk superficial reactionism just breeds poor teams

                      ---

                      Now as for Reggie, you are wrong again. Reggie WAS Danny Granger. He was a solid player who wasn't vocal and actually took a back seat to Chuck Person initially. It wasn't until Larry Brown came that he all of sudden became this great leader, but did he really change or did the team just start winning?

                      I love Reggie, but in 1992 there were outward questions about his ability and leadership. My point is its all perception and some of it has to do with growth and the dynamics of the team.

                      For you to say Danny doesn't show the ability in that regard like Reggie did, just shows your frame of reference.

                      Danny may not develop like that, but the your comparison is just wrong or at best premature.

                      Lastly, Walsh didn't provide the team with that one extra talent?? Really like Chris Mullin? Or Mark Jackson (twice)? Or Jalen Rose?

                      I mean come on. The broken record gets annoying.

                      It's funny how you're always right and go on and on about it, but what happened to Bill White being the next superstar of the league?

                      Your oversimplification of the situation is wrong and the way you overate Bayless is just crazy.

                      And that's all I have to say about that.
                      Last edited by Speed; 10-16-2008, 12:37 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                        Im asking people that might remember, cause I was too young, but wasn't reggie considered kind of a punk his first few seasons? Hardly a great leader. That came later if I understand correctly.

                        Absolutely.

                        The early-90s were spent talking about how to get to the proverbial next level. We had Reggie, but we still needed something. Reggie's greatness developed as he matured and the team around him took shape.

                        If there had been a forum like this one in the early 90's we'd have had folks advocated for trading Reggie for the missing piece.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                          . . . the draft, . . . DRAFT . . . trading expiring contracts . . . .foster should have been traded . . . rasho imo should be traded this year. . . daniels can be traded . . . . a new coach is needed . . . . bird needs to go . . . easiest way of acquiring talent . . . . high draft picks . . . the draft....

                          Why don't you just play fantasy basketball leagues? Clearly the real game moves too slowly for you.

                          EDIT: I'm not even trying to criticize you, croz. But you seem not to have patience or interest in watching players develop, or a speck of loyalty to the players on the team just BECAUSE they are our guys.

                          I can't imagine staying interested throughout the season if I thought everything was decided during a single evening in June.
                          Last edited by Putnam; 10-16-2008, 05:53 PM.
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            Absolutely.

                            The early-90s were spent talking about how to get to the proverbial next level. We had Reggie, but we still needed something. Reggie's greatness developed as he matured and the team around him took shape.

                            If there had been a forum like this one in the early 90's we'd have had folks advocated for trading Reggie for the missing piece.
                            Actually there was a forum similar to this in the early 90's & yes there were many of us advocating the trade of Reggie.

                            Speed, you are correct in theory but incorrect in time line. In fact Reggie Miller never truely became the undisputed leader of our team until Isiah Thomas was here. By that time Reggie had changed from Super Reggie to Grandpa Reggie and he was here for the kids.

                            Let's never forget that the 94 season, great great season btw, Reggie was part of the "dawg pound" side of the locker room. While Mitchell, Thompson, etc. were part of the "old Bulls". Reggie would come out wearing a blue bandana a dark glasses.

                            Now one thing can be said though. Reggie always always always led by example when it came to practice and keeping himself in shape and there is a lot to be said for that.

                            I'm going to give Croz the benefit of the doubt here and say that what he wants is for the Pacers to strike gold and get a LeBron or Shaq type player. He thinks the only way you ever get that type of player is to get a super high draft pick and let's be honest. He is right about that.

                            However as we all know these are generational players that come along only about every 5 years or so.

                            For every Shaq there is an Olawakandi. For every James there is a Manning.

                            The draft is a crap shoot, without a doubt. However to ever get that "A" list type player most likely you have to draft him.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post

                              For every Shaq there is an Olawakandi. For every James there is a Manning.
                              Danny, not Payton.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                                I want a Kobe/Shaq/Lebron personally, but I would rather have average to good players and still have a team.

                                If we do a Hawk or Chicago tank then we won't have a team in Indiana.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X