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

Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

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

  • #31
    Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Absolutely. We've had more than one player lead from the bench.
    On a decent team ?? Cheerleaders are cheap. A true leader develops on the court.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

      yeah deffintly missing JJ........i bet danny is killing 2 birds with one stone.....not caring and spiting JOB......although i hate to see danny hurt his own numbers....
      I CANT SPELL!

      THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        We couldn't afford to keep Jack because we needed to bring in some defensive players that we wouldn't play.
        DJones $2.5m
        Solo $1.6m
        Watson $2.8m
        Total $6.9m

        Afflalo $1m
        J Jack $5m
        Total $6m

        This isn't hindsight. TBird called the Afflalo option before he ended up in Denver. Whatever good Bird got done 2 years ago with JO for Roy, TJ and Rasho expiring and #11 for Rush, J Jack and McBob he basically crapped away this year when he let Jack go, chased Dahntay when the cheaper Afflalo was even who DJ's old team wanted more, and ended up spending more to make the team weaker.

        And if you are where I am looking at how I see the Blair/Tyler thing looking in about 3 years, this summer looks like a front office train wreck.

        Oh wait, did I mention extending the coach. I mean it's like Dumars is running the Pacers at this point.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Absolutely. We've had more than one player lead from the bench.

          This doesn't have anything to do with JOB, it has to do with sheer number of years in the league. A guy has to have years in the league to have teammates looking to him for direction.
          Yep. I remember how the Lakers tuned out Magic and the Celts ignored Bird. Duncan got no respect from teammates, Lebron couldn't get anyone to listen....

          Yes, they are the best of the best, but they aren't the only ones and in those cases we are talking day 1 on the team. Danny is NOT A ROOKIE. He's an all-star, he's been here long enough and had enough success that if it was in his nature to be a leader he would be.

          I mean you say the above quote in a thread where we are talking about how Jack WAS THE LEADER and how long was he with the team? Oh yeah, his first year. But he was a vet. He'd been playing for 3 years before that season.....um, just as long as Granger had.

          So Jack plays 3 years, Danny plays 3 years. In year 4 both are on the Pacers. Jack is the bench PG, Danny is the all-star. Jack is new to the team, Danny has been here longer than everyone but Foster. Jack becomes the leader.

          Explain how your "it takes years" fits into explaining these facts away. It doesn't take years, it takes vision, will, leadership skills, and a coach that reinforces your direction and actions. JOB isn't making Danny a poor leader, but he isn't turning him into one either. There's no player development going on here.


          Personally I think Roy is slipping closer to being the team leader of the future. He's got the demeanor for it, but obviously lacks coaching support completely. I think DJones, Rush and Price would all fully support and follow Roy at the very least.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-01-2010, 09:07 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

            Originally posted by DaveP63 View Post
            He isn't getting to the line because he's content chucking it and is not driving to the basket.
            You know, a strange thing happens as guys play more and more in the league.

            They find out that driving to the basket all the time is physically more demanding and results in getting injured and beat up a lot more. Granger isn't alone in this.

            That's why guys like Dirk, Pierce and Carmelo who get hacked as much as they do to get to the line are, in many ways, underappreciated. It's tough to do that year after year and still remain durable.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              You know, a strange thing happens as guys play more and more in the league.

              They find out that driving to the basket all the time is physically more demanding and results in getting injured and beat up a lot more. Granger isn't alone in this.

              That's why guys like Dirk, Pierce and Carmelo who get hacked as much as they do to get to the line are, in many ways, underappreciated. It's tough to do that year after year and still remain durable.
              the other thing is that Granger is not that kind of guy, he is closer to Rashard Lewis than Wade or Pierce and we need to accept that.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Yep. I remember how the Lakers tuned out Magic and the Celts ignored Bird. Duncan got no respect from teammates, Lebron couldn't get anyone to listen....

                Yes, they are the best of the best, but they aren't the only ones and in those cases we are talking day 1 on the team. Danny is NOT A ROOKIE. He's an all-star, he's been here long enough and had enough success that if it was in his nature to be a leader he would be.

                I mean you say the above quote in a thread where we are talking about how Jack WAS THE LEADER and how long was he with the team? Oh yeah, his first year. But he was a vet. He'd been playing for 3 years before that season.....um, just as long as Granger had.

                So Jack plays 3 years, Danny plays 3 years. In year 4 both are on the Pacers. Jack is the bench PG, Danny is the all-star. Jack is new to the team, Danny has been here longer than everyone but Foster. Jack becomes the leader.

                Explain how your "it takes years" fits into explaining these facts away. It doesn't take years, it takes vision, will, leadership skills, and a coach that reinforces your direction and actions. JOB isn't making Danny a poor leader, but he isn't turning him into one either. There's no player development going on here.


                Personally I think Roy is slipping closer to being the team leader of the future. He's got the demeanor for it, but obviously lacks coaching support completely. I think DJones, Rush and Price would all fully support and follow Roy at the very least.
                By "years" I think he meant Roy won't get the nod as leader because he's a second year player.

                Honestly, I think DJones is the closet thing to a leader this team has had. In the future, I think Roy and Price have leadership qualities. Or at least did in college. Problem with Roy is you like your leader to come from a guard spot in most cases. Problem with A.J. is we don't really know how he's going to turn out. Which is probably why it takes being a veteran to be a leader in most cases anyway.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                  As for the injury, I haven't read anything that says the injury IS affecting him.
                  Actually, a week or so after Danny came back he did a pre-game interview on TV with Stacy Paetz and he told her he was playing through the pain and not practicing. He also said that anytime he shifts his weight toward his heel it's hard for him to get off the ground properly (this one is on Stacy's Twitter, Jan 11 - http://twitter.com/stacypaetz). This kind of injury is not likely to get a ton better if you come back before it's healed and start grinding on it again.

                  Now he may be back in practice now, I don't know - maybe someone should ask JOB during his next show. And perhaps he is pain free now or maybe you are right and his performance is more attitude than injury...I don't know.

                  I'm just putting it out there that Danny was still in pain when he came back and it is possible that pain/injury is playing a significant role in keeping him from driving to the basket (among other things).
                  Last edited by gummy; 02-01-2010, 10:41 PM.
                  "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                  "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                  "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    the other thing is that Granger is not that kind of guy, he is closer to Rashard Lewis than Wade or Pierce and we need to accept that.
                    And that, too. Some people did call correctly that his game probably most resembled Lewis, with better qualities in some areas.

                    But I'm not sure where those Pierce comparisons came from. He's got a completely different style of play.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                      Peirce has Garnett and Allen. Carmelo has Chauncy. Not arguing just saying you should have used a better example.
                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      I remember it wasn't too long ago that people said they wouldn't trade Granger for Carmelo, or how Granger was easily comparable to a guy like Paul Pierce.

                      I hope people now see how good guys like that really are. Being a true star player in the NBA is as much a test of time as much as anything else, and guys like those two have been bringing it year after year from the very day they entered the league.

                      It's tough being that good for that long a time. When you get to that level, you're facing the other team's best defensive player, who relishes trying to stop you. You face double and triple teams. You're expected to play the big minutes and take all the big shots. You're expected to not miss games. You now face the expectations from the fans and media and you face it every night.

                      Granger is now in that situation where he's trying to at least maintain the level that he achieved last year, and it's tough. He's no longer the surprise guy who just burst onto the scene last year and became an all-star.

                      Now he's facing the burdens that perennial all-star players have face every single season. And it's not so easy. These guys reach a certain point where so much is expected from them that they get criticized for not being even better.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        Peirce has Garnett and Allen. Carmelo has Chauncy. Not arguing just saying you should have used a better example.
                        And to be fair, the Celtics stunk just like the Pacers do before Garnett and Allen.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          And to be fair, the Celtics stunk just like the Pacers do before Garnett and Allen.
                          I wonder who the coach was?
                          Say between 2002-2004
                          Last edited by KnicksRGarbage; 02-02-2010, 01:09 PM.
                          Coach Vogel on the Chicago crowd in game 4 : "I only heard pacers fans. I didn't see any red, I saw Pacers fans I saw yellow and blue, and I heard Pacers chants. That's all I heard the whole game."

                          http://www.cacawebdev.com

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                            Originally posted by KnicksRGarbage View Post
                            I wonder who the coach was?
                            Say between 2002-2004
                            Yep Ole' Flim himself
                            I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                            Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                            Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                              Peirce has Garnett and Allen. Carmelo has Chauncy. Not arguing just saying you should have used a better example.
                              Ever since Carmelo entered the league, the Nuggets have gone from a team that dwelled around the 10th seed every season to a team that has made the playoffs every single season. This includes several seasons before Billups arrived. The same can't be said of Granger and the Pacers.

                              Paul Pierce is an 8 time NBA all-star. He dragged Antoine Walker and bunch of scrubs to the ECFs. Oh, and he did with Jim O'brien as coach.

                              And according to some here, Jim O'brien doesn't know how to coach. So basically Paul Pierce dragged a team comprised of Walker, scrubs and no coach to the ECFs. Granger has yet to do anything remotely close to that.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Granger! Party of none, Granger Granger!!

                                So why did they suck in 2007?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X