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

Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

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

  • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
    How about we make a play for Big Al WITHOUT trading Granger?

    It might be possible with a combination of youth, vet, and a draft pick?

    I would love a front line of Hibbert, Jefferson, Granger
    Is it possible that the Pacers could get Jefferson without giving up Granger and Hibbert?

    Technically, yes...it is possible.....just highly unlikely.

    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
    I think even TJ Ford could rak up some assists!
    You forgot to turn on the green "sarcasm" font.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
      How about we make a play for Big Al WITHOUT trading Granger?

      It might be possible with a combination of youth, vet, and a draft pick?

      I would love a front line of Hibbert, Jefferson, Granger

      I think even TJ Ford could rak up some assists!

      I seriously doubt it. Kahn wants Granger. SF is a weak position for the T'Wolves, and Granger would fix that weakness for them.

      Heck, maybe Kahn wants the Pacers #1 to make the odds even greater to draft another PG.....John Wall. He seems have a thing for PG's.... if 1 is good a half dozen is better.

      In all defense of Bird,, it might not have been Granger that was the deal breaker, but another player like Hibbert that scuttled the deal since the salaries of Jefferson and Granger don't match. Or maybe Kahn wanting the Pacers having to throw in the 2010 1st was a deal beaker and not the giving up Granger. Who knows. What I do know is I'd love to have Jefferson in a Pacers' uni.

      Comment


      • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

        here is more info about this deal
        http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...-not-available


        By Marc Stein

        Minnesota Timberwolves president David Kahn insists that Al Jefferson has not been made available -- to anyone -- in advance of the Feb. 18 trading deadline.

        “As I’ve said publicly,” Kahn told ESPN.com, “I have no intention of trading any of our core players this season.”

        It’s a subject we covered in the Weekend Dime after hearing multiple rumbles during last week’s D-League Showcase in Boise, Idaho, that the Wolves were prepared to start exploring the trade market for Jefferson amid questions about Jefferson’s compatibility with Kevin Love and how he fits in Minnesota’s more free-flowing triangle offense under new coach Kurt Rambis.

        An excerpt:

        “A case can be made that either Jefferson or Love -- undeniably good players individually who are still both developing -- would be helped greatly by playing next to a more athletic sidekick no matter what the system.”

        But a source with knowledge of the Wolves’ thinking subsequently dismissed the idea that Kahn would part with Jefferson just a half-season into his recovery from a torn ACL in his right knee that limited him to 50 games in the 2008-09 season.

        In a pretty candid recent appearance on ESPN’s NBA Today podcast with Ryen Russillo, Kahn himself conceded that the Wolves aren’t sure if Jefferson and Love can play together in the long term . . . but also said that it’s too early in Jefferson’s comeback for such judgments. The interview sure made it sound as though Minnesota wants to give the tag team an entire season of evaluation before thinking about breaking them up, since Jefferson -- when healthy -- ranks as one of the league’s last true back-to-the-basket forces.

        Jefferson speculation, however, isn’t likely to be easily hushed now that it’s out there. Yahoo! Sports reported Sunday that the Wolves recently offered the original centerpiece of Minnesota’s post-Kevin Garnett era to Indiana for a return package headlined by Pacers swingman Danny Granger.

        No such discussions have taken place according to Kahn, who said Monday: “I spoke to [Pacers president] Larry Bird in person Friday in between our shootarounds for 20 minutes and neither player’s name was ever mentioned.”
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Is it possible that the Pacers could get Jefferson without giving up Granger and Hibbert?

          Technically, yes...it is possible.....just highly unlikely.


          You forgot to turn on the green "sarcasm" font.

          Im learning

          I was out for a week on the "in active" list

          jk got it
          Sittin on top of the world!

          Comment


          • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            here is more info about this deal
            http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...-not-available


            By Marc Stein

            Minnesota Timberwolves president David Kahn insists that Al Jefferson has not been made available -- to anyone -- in advance of the Feb. 18 trading deadline.

            “As I’ve said publicly,” Kahn told ESPN.com, “I have no intention of trading any of our core players this season.”

            It’s a subject we covered in the Weekend Dime after hearing multiple rumbles during last week’s D-League Showcase in Boise, Idaho, that the Wolves were prepared to start exploring the trade market for Jefferson amid questions about Jefferson’s compatibility with Kevin Love and how he fits in Minnesota’s more free-flowing triangle offense under new coach Kurt Rambis.

            An excerpt:

            “A case can be made that either Jefferson or Love -- undeniably good players individually who are still both developing -- would be helped greatly by playing next to a more athletic sidekick no matter what the system.”

            But a source with knowledge of the Wolves’ thinking subsequently dismissed the idea that Kahn would part with Jefferson just a half-season into his recovery from a torn ACL in his right knee that limited him to 50 games in the 2008-09 season.

            In a pretty candid recent appearance on ESPN’s NBA Today podcast with Ryen Russillo, Kahn himself conceded that the Wolves aren’t sure if Jefferson and Love can play together in the long term . . . but also said that it’s too early in Jefferson’s comeback for such judgments. The interview sure made it sound as though Minnesota wants to give the tag team an entire season of evaluation before thinking about breaking them up, since Jefferson -- when healthy -- ranks as one of the league’s last true back-to-the-basket forces.

            Jefferson speculation, however, isn’t likely to be easily hushed now that it’s out there. Yahoo! Sports reported Sunday that the Wolves recently offered the original centerpiece of Minnesota’s post-Kevin Garnett era to Indiana for a return package headlined by Pacers swingman Danny Granger.

            No such discussions have taken place according to Kahn, who said Monday: “I spoke to [Pacers president] Larry Bird in person Friday in between our shootarounds for 20 minutes and neither player’s name was ever mentioned.”

            So, this definitley knocks out Jefferson for the Pacers, as Roy is anything but the above description
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment


            • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

              I think one thing people who are advocates of the proposed trade (Jefferson for Granger) are forgetting is the marketability of Granger.

              I don't mean this as Granger getting endorsements, I mean as a player to market to fans. People like Danny. Obviously only those close to him know what he's really like, but the perception is he's a good, respectful person. I'm not saying Jefferson isn't, but when you get a guy who is very talented, is good in the community (and not a goof on the court) and also *wants* to be here, well I don't think you give that up too easily.

              I'm not one of these people who cares only about winning, regardless who's on the team. I want to follow a team of guys who I like, personality-wise, too. Again, obviously I don't know Danny, but from what I've seen in interviews and on the court, he seems like a good guy.

              For example, I can't cheer for the Nuggets. Good team obviously, but they're a team with a bunch of really unlikeable, arrogant players. If the Pacers had that team, I wouldn't care that they're winning, I'd still want to get rid of a bunch of those guys because they're just not players I can feel happy for.

              Now obviously I want talented players on the Pacers too, and I don't necessarily want a bunch of milk-drinkers either. But I don't want guys I can't be proud of wearing a jersey to support.

              I personally feel Granger is the superior player in this case, but there are players out there who are better (or considered better) than Granger who I wouldn't want instead of him.

              Granger, I feel, likes being a Pacer, wants to remain a Pacer and appreciates the fans (as evidenced by his brief entries on this very forum). I like having him as a Pacer for more than just what his stats say. Oh and I do feel we can win with him down the road.

              Comment


              • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                Originally posted by cordobes View Post


                Do you think JJ Hickson can improve defensively? I like his potential, but he scares me on that side of the ball. Talented offensive player, no doubt.

                I think Murphy for Big Z+Hickson is a bad deal for Cleveland. Overpaying for Jamison is by far a better one.



                Ah, certainly. But the way Rubio has been playing this season I very much doubt the Wolves will even consider using his rights as a sweetener.
                I think Hickson can and probably will improve defensively. Will he ever be a great defender? Probably not, but he won't be a sieve either.

                I agree that Murphy for Z+Hickson is a bad deal for the Cavs, and I would wager that they feel the same way. This is why I'm hoping that Bird doesn't make Hickson's inclusion a sticking point in the trade.

                Yeah, I was kidding with the Love+Rubio thing. Minnesota wouldn't dream of doing anything like that.

                Comment


                • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  I agree that Murphy for Z+Hickson is a bad deal for the Cavs, and I would wager that they feel the same way. This is why I'm hoping that Bird doesn't make Hickson's inclusion a sticking point in the trade.
                  Agreed. I think getting their first (currently #29) is a reasonable request, though.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                    Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                    How satisfied would you be if it didn't happen because we held out for cash and a pick?
                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Agreed. I think getting their first (currently #29) is a reasonable request, though.
                    Quite. I don't think a pick or the cash is unreasonable at all. The cash would be to offset the cost of buying out Z so he can return to Cleveland (wink wink, nudge nudge). I also don't think they'd hesitate throwing Powe and/or Danny Green into the mix if they're looking to move a player so they won't have to cut or trade someone when Z returns.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                      Justin, can you honestly say you didn't see Granger's leadership tonight? What about his defense?

                      My point is, though Granger looks different than he did last year, he is capable of stepping up into that role, I just don't believe Jefferson is, maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen nothing that makes me think otherwise...yet.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        Justin, can you honestly say you didn't see Granger's leadership tonight? What about his defense?

                        My point is, though Granger looks different than he did last year, he is capable of stepping up into that role, I just don't believe Jefferson is, maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen nothing that makes me think otherwise...yet.
                        Jefferson is a beast in the low post and on the boards, but his passing stinks and he's not much on the defensive end. Sort of a bigman tweener in that he's undersized for a C and a bit slowfooted for PF, but not so much of an issue that this is a huge problem. You can keep him on the court without a problem.

                        But he's definitely a talent and he does things that are hard to find in this league. If the Warriors had him instead of Andris Biedrins (which they easily could have) on that We Believe team from a few years ago, I think they would've beaten the Jazz and advanced to the conference finals.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          if that's true, I have no idea why the Pacers didn't jump on that deal. Granger and Jefferson are about on the same talent level, and you almost always take the big man over the wing.
                          Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Wade, Granger, what do they all have in common?
                          "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                          Comment


                          • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                            If bird went through with this trade, it would set our team back at least 2 more years. we have personnel around granger, not jefferson.

                            you guys can hate on granger for shooting 10 threes a game but what else can he do? hes on the pacers? does it really matter? i value the development and progression of team chemistry over 'finding a big man'.

                            NO NO NO NO to this trade.
                            "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                            Comment


                            • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                              Originally posted by IndyProdigy View Post
                              we have personnel around granger, not jefferson.
                              And in a couple years, that personnel is going to look completely different.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger

                                IP-

                                They're all Af-Am dudes between 6-5 and 6-9. Other than that,
                                not much.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X