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

  • #76
    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

    I agree, if you get a chance at a once in a lifetime player you take it, but it's like playing the lottery instead of getting a job.

    It's probably not the best way to go about it and probably doesn't have a very good chance of happening.

    "Strike Gold" is the right way to say it.

    The thought of Reggie not being a leader until even later in his career makes the Granger not a leader argument even less true.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

      Look I don't think trading Danny Granger is the worst thing this franchise could do. I really don't. I don't want to see it happen because I really love the kid, but if we are trading him we are getting something monster in return.

      PS- croz is the consummate pessimist.
      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

        Originally posted by tbabyy924 View Post


        Horford?? Really? You want to trade Danny Granger (the face of your franchise) for 12 pts and 10 rebounds? And let's not talk about stats, let's talk chemistry. You don't think TJ Ford remembers who Horford is? Should he just be like "Oh, hey it's you. You almost ended my career. Let's be good buddies now." ?? No. And then what are you going to do with Hibbert? If given minutes, Hibbert is very capable of 12 and 10. Or are you going to move Horford to PF and move Murphy to the bench. Because I doubt the stingy Hawks would take Murphy's contract. Then you'd be paying somebody on your bench 10-12 M.

        Ist off I don't see the Pacers trading Granger due to the fact who would you get better than Granger that another team WOULD BE WILLING to trade?
        "IF" the Pacers had the unbelieveable opportunity to get Horford for Granger YOU DO IT! It will NEVER happen, but you do it laughing all the way back to Conseco.

        Horford was a rookie who averaged a double double. Granger as a rookie averaged 7.5 pts and 5 rebs. Granger plays the same positions that Dun plays, so little loss where as Horford is your PF of the future. He can also play the 5, thus making him a valuable big for the future. What's easier to replace a PF or a SF? What's easier to find a good POWER FORWARD or a good SF?

        Let's talk about another issue... salary. Horford is playing on a rookie salary for the next 4 years at a SUBSTANTIALLY less salary than Granger will be the last 3 years of his contract. The savings will allow Murphy to be a rotational player instead of a starter.

        Chemistry? Who is to say the trade will hurt the chemistry of this team? Since when did Granger become franchise player and leader? You have to earn it not inherit it... remember the last Pacer that inherited it? He's now playing for another team in Canada!

        Now here is a lineup that has future written all over it. Power, outside shooting, speed. and "D".

        Hibbert
        Horford
        Dun
        Rush
        Ford

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

          I'd love Granger for Horford, but unfortunately, Horford's the type of big that the Hawks haven't had in a while. Not to mention, trading him would leave them a hole at the C spot.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

            Obviously you trade Granger for Horford, problem is, the Hawks woulden't do that in a million years. its moot.
            "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


            • #81
              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
              Obviously you trade Granger for Horford, problem is, the Hawks woulden't do that in a million years. its moot.
              I guess you must have missed the 1st paragragh of my post, so yes it is moot as to whether the trade would ever happen. Atlanta would be crazy to make the trade! ABSOLUTELY CRAZY!

              What I did was express my views to tbabyy924 as to why the trade made sense for the Pacers to trade Granger for Horford when tbabyy924 doesn't believe Horford measures up to Granger. Both Granger and Horford are really nice young players, but I feel Horford will end up being the more valuable player b/c of the positions he plays. JMOAA

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                J Tyme, I agree with you 100%. Danny Granger isn't the end all, be all. If you get a deal that seems like your fleecing the other side for Grange....You take it.

                I like Granger and he is a fan favorite, but that doesn't take him or any Pacer off of the trade block.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                  J Tyme, I agree with you 100%. Danny Granger isn't the end all, be all. If you get a deal that seems like your fleecing the other side for Grange....You take it.

                  I like Granger and he is a fan favorite, but that doesn't take him or any Pacer off of the trade block.
                  I think the difference is that you don't actively seek to trade Danny. IF something great seems available (and I disagree with the thought that those are out there to be plucked), then you jump on it, but only if it is a clear no-brainer to more than just the hardcore fans.

                  Everyone is available if the right deal comes along, but I don't think we should be shopping the players we're trying to bond the fan base to. Sending away fan favorites for a wash result is just as damaging as keeping bad apples.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I think the difference is that you don't actively seek to trade Danny. IF something great seems available (and I disagree with the thought that those are out there to be plucked), then you jump on it, but only if it is a clear no-brainer to more than just the hardcore fans.

                    Everyone is available if the right deal comes along, but I don't think we should be shopping the players we're trying to bond the fan base to. Sending away fan favorites for a wash result is just as damaging as keeping bad apples.
                    Yes, that is the "reading between the lines" version of what I wanted to say. Thanks
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                      I understand Horford is a moot point. My point was that if you trade Danny for a player with "potential" who currently does not measure up to Danny, all you would be seeing is more empty seats. You might think Horford is as good as Granger, but the casual fan might not. When they think Pacers, first player that comes to mind is Granger. Now it's Horford?

                      Obviously you would do it if it favors us by a LARGE margin, because if you don't it's just being naive. However, trading a player like David Lee or Horford for Granger straight up is not favoring us by a visible large margin.

                      Your line up of Hibbert, Horford, Dun, Rush and Ford is banking a lot on potential. What if Hibbert and Rush don't show progress? Dunleavy had only one good season, what if he goes back to his GS days? What if Ford gets injured again? Horford has only one season under his belt, how do you know he will improve, instead of maintain that 12 and 10? Danny's the best perimeter defender on this team, what if Rush can't fill that role?

                      I'm just willing to give this team some time. Give them a chance to grow together and build something special. I'm not with the whole trade for "potential." If we trade Danny, it better be for somebody proven.
                      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                        Tbaby... I have to disagree with your points about the other players on the roster. There is no justification of not trading Horford for Granger by other players' lack of experience. We have those guys on our roster regardless of whether we give up Granger for Horford. We are still dependent on how they develop as players.

                        I guarantee every team in the league covets both players... but for us to justify getting the cheaper player that plays a more revered position makes this a trade we would be dumb not to make. We would end up having to probably throw in a first rounder for them to even consider it. We would need to consider the cost to our "future" lineup in that case.

                        When looking at our current "future" lineup... you are looking at ford, rush, granger, mcroberts(?), hibbert. You know how happy our front office would be with the prospect of having ford, rush, dun/future first, horford, and hibbert. I would say VERY HAPPY. I would rather have a scrub SF than a scrub PF as would any GM in the league.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                          Originally posted by tbabyy924 View Post
                          I understand Horford is a moot point. My point was that if you trade Danny for a player with "potential" who currently does not measure up to Danny, all you would be seeing is more empty seats. You might think Horford is as good as Granger, but the casual fan might not. When they think Pacers, first player that comes to mind is Granger. Now it's Horford?

                          Obviously you would do it if it favors us by a LARGE margin, because if you don't it's just being naive. However, trading a player like David Lee or Horford for Granger straight up is not favoring us by a visible large margin.

                          Your line up of Hibbert, Horford, Dun, Rush and Ford is banking a lot on potential. What if Hibbert and Rush don't show progress? Dunleavy had only one good season, what if he goes back to his GS days? What if Ford gets injured again? Horford has only one season under his belt, how do you know he will improve, instead of maintain that 12 and 10? Danny's the best perimeter defender on this team, what if Rush can't fill that role?

                          I'm just willing to give this team some time. Give them a chance to grow together and build something special. I'm not with the whole trade for "potential." If we trade Danny, it better be for somebody proven.

                          Your opinion is duely noted. I'll just stick with my view about Horford being a more valuable player than Granger, and I like Granger.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                            Right on Justin.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              I guess you must have missed the 1st paragragh of my post, so yes it is moot as to whether the trade would ever happen. Atlanta would be crazy to make the trade! ABSOLUTELY CRAZY!

                              What I did was express my views to tbabyy924 as to why the trade made sense for the Pacers to trade Granger for Horford when tbabyy924 doesn't believe Horford measures up to Granger. Both Granger and Horford are really nice young players, but I feel Horford will end up being the more valuable player b/c of the positions he plays. JMOAA
                              I think you could argue that Portland might dance with Lamarcus Aldridge... I just was working through this on another thread...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                                Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                                I think you could argue that Portland might dance with Lamarcus Aldridge... I just was working through this on another thread...
                                You could argue it, but Portland would never do that.

                                Aldridge is a very good complement to Oden. He can shoot from mid-range and can play as a perimeter big to complement Oden's inside game. And considering Oden's injury history, Aldridge is very nice to have around because he also has the size to play center on most nights if absolutely neccessary.

                                Aldridge simply has more value because he plays a position of much greater premium and he'd be much harder for Portland to replace than anyone on their roster not named Greg Oden.

                                If Portland loses Aldridge, they start hurting at PF and it immediately becomes a huge problem for them. Even without Granger, they're not exactly in desperate straits to have to improve at SF.
                                Last edited by d_c; 10-17-2008, 04:01 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X