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

Danny Granger for MVP?

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

  • #31
    Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

    I feel compelled to address this due to the high percentage of posts where I use statistics of some sort. I am struggling with the back and forth.

    Stats, by themselves, are the classic illustration of the old adage that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Over the past decade, with the advent of the Internet, faster and more powerful computers, fantasy sports, and guys like Billy Beane and John Hollinger, the misuse (and abuse) of statistics has grown exponentially.

    However, I must unequivocally state that "stats mean nothing" is simply wrong-headed. They are a part of the full picture, and ignoring them is every bit as damaging as relying on them too heavily. What you see can be just as misleading as statistics, and it is every bit, if not more, subjective.

    Stats, when properly used, can provide a great deal of depth and color to your understanding of what is happening. This is how I try to use them. I believe there is no such thing as "the perfect stat", which is why I always try to peel the onion. I have spent the last 16 years of my life as a financial-operations analyst/business manager. I live the numbers (the stats), and the numbers I use and the decisions I make from them have very real impact on peoples lives and livelihoods. I have witnessed the damage done by the misuse of numbers and the damage done by the refusal to use the numbers.

    Forgive me, but I must admit that I am taking some of this assault on statistics somewhat personal. I can't help but think that some of the repudiations of stats, particularly as posted by members for whom I have a good deal of respect, are, by extension, repudiations and rejections of much of the work that I have done and the contributions that I had hoped to be making to this board.

    Despite my stat heavy posting history, I have always made the utmost effort to keep statistics in the proper context. Just yesterday, I visited the Miami Heat board on RealGM so that I could get the people who watch the Heat to help me understand some trends I was seeing regarding Michael Beasley's production. I am not always successful, I do at least try to acknowledge when I might be slipping into the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" category. While I do the work I do mostly for my own edification and curiosity, I would hate to think that it is being rejected out of hand.

    Anyway, I was simply hoping we could bring this conversation back in from the opposite poles and more towards the middle.

    BTW, the only player I can think of that ever deserved MVP primarily on the strength of numbers was Mike Schmidt's MVP year in 1986. The Phils did have a winning record, but they finished 21.5 games behind the Mets and didn't make the playoffs...and had the Phillies not had winning record, I probably would've balked even with his numbers.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

      I can move back to the middle.

      For basketball, you can use stats to support an argument that is based on something other than stats - an observation or trend, etc.

      But if stats are the basis for your opinion, (again for basketball) then something is probably wrong. I use statistics as support all the time outside of basketball. But with basketball, I try very hard to not use statistics in forming certain opinions as they are too easily manipulated. If they are easily manipulated, then they are not likely to have a strong correlation.

      What I am specifically focused on, though, is that the connection between statistics and winning/losing is not solid nor legitimate. That is not an appropriate use. Using stats to determine "most valuable" (under the assumption that most valuable has something to do with winning and losing, as opposed to "most outstanding player") is just a fallacy.

      You can use them all you want to argue in support of an opinion. Such and such is a better scorer or rebounder, etc. But to connect that to winning and losing just doesn't hold together at all.

      And for me, I don't care much about the "who is better" debate. Who helps their team win? That's what I'm interested in.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        And for me, I don't care much about the "who is better" debate. Who helps their team win? That's what I'm interested in.
        I'm not fond of player comparisons, either. Player analogies are inexact, and they too often lead to arcane arguments that are at best, tangential, at worst, too far off topic.

        That's why I put caveats on my PR analysis, noting that I was being intentionally arbitrary. I wasn't trying to say so and so was "better", merely trying to get some history to help frame some expectations, and to try to help me understand or improve my opinions of drafts and draft picks.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

          "stats mean nothing" is hyperbole. But one of my pet peeves is that fans (no one here) who never watch the actual games, just look at the box scores and stats and think they have a good idea as to what is going on.

          Count55, if you watch most of the games and use stats to backup your points/theroies - nothing wrong with that - that is what I try to do. I'll think of a point I'll want to make during a game, then I'll use some stats to confirm my point and present it here in this forum.

          ChicagoJ - I am in complete agreement with you on this issue

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            But there is no causal relationship between any individual player stat or metric and winning/losing.

            If you care about who puts up the best stats for a fantasy league, that's fine.

            The statistics are the outcome of playing the game. Yeah, you can sometimes tell that a player did some things well or poorly, but you still can't make a connection to winning and losing without introducing the W/L variables into the stat (thus, a causality problem.)
            What I'm getting at though is that "stats" are simply a recorded measure of some events that did in fact occur.

            The problem isn't any stat, per se, it's always the application and the quality of effort to introduce circumstances to the measure. Two cars may go the same speed, brake as quickly and so on and you can't deny those facts. But that doesn't mean you can't still like one over the other.

            I find that stats and the complaints about them do more to DEFINE HOW YOU FORM YOUR OPINION. For example, if I say "best guy is guy who scores the most points" then you counter perhaps with "what about rebounds". What has happened is that we are realizing that there is more to it than just points.

            So when you take it much further and continue this back and forth of stat development and then critique, what you are really doing is defining what it takes to win games. You are improving the quality of your opinion and getting a deeper understanding of the sport.


            And as we all know there is a tough problem with being unable to easily measure some aspects of the sport. For example, I've toyed with the idea of "scoring" a game myself, where I assign points for positive or negative plays by players. I would take each possession and give a point or two if you helped your team score or ended the other team's possession.

            Of course the problem right off is defining what is a good play and how much more valuable one type of play is over another. But technically if you resolved those issues then your final stat result would be "correct" and have a lot of value.


            Ultimately we already have one team stat that is pretty good at this, and that's "score". Of course we all know that some teams are better than their record or better on a given night than the final score would indicate, we've all said those things or heard them said.

            Score only wins because it is defined as the final goal statistic. If it was "team with most rebounds wins" then it would be a different game, but still one you could technically play.


            "stats mean nothing" is hyperbole. But one of my pet peeves is that fans (no one here) who never watch the actual games, just look at the box scores and stats and think they have a good idea as to what is going on.
            I totally agree with this. I defend stats for getting this bashing as if all those various opinions on who or what is best is somehow much more accurate.

            Where the problem comes in is when someone will trot out a number as if that is the end-all, be-all. But it would be even worse if someone just gave their opinion and said that was the end-all, be-all. At least I can argue with a number and counter it with my own stats.

            What's the counter for "I think he's the greatest"? "I think you are wrong". Boy, that's a thrilling debate.


            When I was younger, I used to like the A/TO ratio for PGs. Until I figured out that a PG could play 40+ minutes, have three assists to one turnover (thus, an outstanding ATO ratio) but ONLY HAVE THREE ASSISTS!!
            So it turns out Jay is on our side after all. He used one stat to prove that another stat is not the only stat of value. All stats are qualified. The Win-Loss record stat is qualified. You go 4-0 vs the four worst teams, is that better than going 2-2 vs the four best teams? Are you telling me that there is a flaw with the W-L stat which the entire sporting world is based on?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

              I'm not fond of player comparisons, either. Player analogies are inexact
              Pippen = Granger called and said for you to shut it!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Danny Granger for MVP?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                The Win-Loss record stat is qualified. You go 4-0 vs the four worst teams, is that better than going 2-2 vs the four best teams? Are you telling me that there is a flaw with the W-L stat which the entire sporting world is based on?
                In football, yes. The schedules are not balanced among all teams.

                Over any particular four game stretch of the season, sure.

                Over 82 games, it all washes out.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment

                Working...
                X