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 CableKC View Post
    Exactly....I'd be extremely disappointed. I'd always hope for more....but would be satisfied with Cash and Z for Murphy. I don't want to undervalue Murphy and what he can bring to the table.....but I do not want to underscore the importance of getting our 2010-2011 SalaryCap situation under control ( which moving Murphy for an Expiring Contract would do ).

    This, of course, assumes that there are actually any true interest in Murphy from other GMs.
    Why would cash make a difference to you as oppose to just getting Z?

    I've never understood why fans put such a big deal on cash when its really just going to the other teams owner - doesn't affect the cap or anything and while it could help a buyout, it really doesn't affect the fan at all...or am I missing something?

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
      Why would cash make a difference to you as oppose to just getting Z?

      I've never understood why fans put such a big deal on cash when its really just going to the other teams owner - doesn't affect the cap or anything and while it could help a buyout, it really doesn't affect the fan at all...or am I missing something?
      Thinking about it.....I'd be elated if we could get Hickson or a 1st round pick on top of Z for Murphy.

      I'd be happy if we could get some $$$ to help buy out Big Z.....but then I realized that we'd be asking the Cavs to pay an additional $12 mil just to take on a jumpshooting PF that can rebound and hit the 3pt shot but is slower then Shaq. You're right.....I just want to cut my losses with Murphy and move on.
      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 Dr. Awesome View Post
        I couldn't disagree more. Jefferson is Z-Bo v2.0, he has hollow stats. Its funny, on another forum, about 90% of people from other teams even think this is terrible for the Pacers.
        Randolph is playing winning basketball this season in Memphis. They started the season 1-9 with Iverson and are now 18-18. Surround Jefferson with good players and he'll deliver wins. Same for Granger.

        Anyway, I agree with you and those people. Insert Jefferson in the current Pacers roster and you'd have a very difficult scenario defensively. Jefferson can't defend the perimeter, can't defend athletes, struggles away from the paint, particularly off the low post and it's not even that good there. Pair him with Hibbert and you have a disaster waiting to happen. Even worse than Murphy/Hibbert. So, the Pacers would need to move Hibbert.

        In abstract, I think Granger and Jefferson are players of similar talent. In this concrete situation, trading one for the other doesn't make much sense to me (from the Pacers point of view, I like the trade for the Wolves). You trade away your franchise player who's under a franchise-friendly contract for a guy of similar quality coming off an ACL surgery and then you have to find a trade for the up'n'coming center under a rookie contract. Meh... just not worth the trouble. Maybe Big Al becomes a 22/11/4 assists with average defence in the future and you're wasting a franchise big, but there's too much uncertainty.

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        McRoberts--yes. Tyler--probably not. He does have more long-term potential than either of them imo.
        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.

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        I've pointed out his faults too, but I have put those faults on O'Brien. O'Brien is asking him to shoot 3's, not drive, not pass, all he wants is for Granger to shoot 3's. Thats holding Granger back from his potential.
        I don't know that. Granger has been improving since O'Brien arrived there (although he was already improving before JOB). But he just won the MIP award while being coached by O'Brien, saying he's holding Granger back is kind of odd. Do you think Granger still has a great deal of untapped potential? I'd be surprised, I think he can improve in some areas of his game but not at the same rate of the past, not even close.

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        Love+Rubio's rights, and we're talking.
        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.

        Comment


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

          MikeDC-

          Exactly. The next time the NBA awards an additional win to a
          team for having a player make the All-Star team will be the
          first time.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            Because he doesn't affect the game, just puts up great stats. He is an awful defender and doesn't make teammates better. I think he would be a great second fiddle, but if we are trading Granger, he becomes our #1 option.

            Granger showed last year that he is capable of leading this team to victory - against top teams might I add, O'Brien is just screwing him up by turning him into a jumpshooter only. If Granger continues to be only a jumpshooter, I would say his offensive stats are hollow, but he can still defend - unlike Jefferson.
            I keep wondering if this is the doing of the coach, or the player.

            I can't imagine that Granger would be benched for driving to the rim more often, or taking closer shots that would improve on his FG% (currently about 40%).

            I'm just not that sure it is all the coach's doing.

            Comment


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

              i would def do this deal. al jefferson is underrated and i started to think that i overvalued granger after last year. shooting 10 3's a game and just making 3-4 of them isn't what a superstar does. i know he came back from injury but it started to be a habit of him. besides finding quality bigs is always one of hardest things in this league.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post


                I'm just not that sure it is all the coach's doing.


                I couldn't agree more. If O'Brien is the cause, I'm more apt to feel it is b/c of the contract extension he rec'd from Bird than any coaching problem.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by xtacy View Post
                  i would def do this deal. al jefferson is underrated and i started to think that i overvalued granger after last year. shooting 10 3's a game and just making 3-4 of them isn't what a superstar does. i know he came back from injury but it started to be a habit of him. besides finding quality bigs is always one of hardest things in this league.

                  IIRC, Granger was shooting 9 3ptrs per game b4 he went out with the injury, so all he's doing is what he did previously.... doing the same thing Murphy does.

                  B4 anyone gets over excited, I am in no way comparing Granger to Murphy other than they like to shoot 3's.

                  Comment


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

                    Jefferson is not any better than Zach Randolph. He does not play shut down Defense and just scores. I was not very impressed with him when I saw him live here on January 2.

                    Larry Bird is doing a great job of staying patient and not panicking.

                    Comment


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

                      My quick take-Jefferson is coming off a pretty big injury, not shown ability to be #1 guy on a good team, age isn't that much difference between him and Danny. This would be rearranging the deck chairs to me.

                      The only argument I can think of is that it's typically easier to find a good wing player vs. a good big.

                      Otherwise, too many things to not do this trade. Like you Danny can defend and guard his position, you know Danny will work to improve, you know Danny has a pretty reasonable long term contract for his output.

                      Now if Al Jefferson was completely healthy and still getting better, maybe?

                      I like Al, it was interesting to see how the Pacers attacked him though with double teams, daring him to pass out of them, to which he was, meh. So I don't think he makes guys around him better, but I don't think Danny does at this moment either.

                      It's like many have said, it's just trading to trade. It's a lateral move at best, imo. Just not something worth doing at this point.

                      Comment


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

                        There will be quite a few rumors flying in the next few weeks. Wait until a year from now.
                        Things could get very interesting.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by owl View Post
                          There will be quite a few rumors flying in the next few weeks. Wait until a year from now.
                          Things could get very interesting.
                          One enouraging thing, as mentioned before, is the wheels are moving in trade talks. So there might be a chance to drastically alter this team in the next year and half.

                          Comment


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

                            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!
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by owl View Post

                              There will be quite a few rumors flying in the next few weeks. Wait until a year from now.
                              Things could get very interesting.

                              The $64,000 question for ownership is, will there be many left in Conseco in a year from now if they just keep waiting and patching the sinking ship with 2nd quality replacement parts? Does ownership think they can fill Conseco by waiting? Sometimes the ship has to be repaired now not later b4 it sinks.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                I just can't believe that trade (Murphy to CLE) will actually ever happen. I hope it's an irrational fear of mine, but I won't believe it until it's been reported as a done deal

                                If it DID happen, I'd be pretty satisfied with Murph for Z (to be cut), cash, and their 1st.
                                Because :

                                It makes sense
                                It has been reported ad nausem as Foster to Denver
                                Obie has Bird still beliving he can guide his club to the playoffs

                                Plus it is all something we desperately wan't, but they say becareful what you wish for
                                Sittin on top of the world!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X