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

Time to trade Granger

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

  • #31
    Re: Time to trade Granger

    Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
    Maybe this is true. Probably this is true.

    As far as building a team and not a superstar - I totally agree. I'm just not sold that Danny Granger is the guy to build around. It seems like he might benefit from going to a team with a set style in play where he has to force himself to adjust to that style. Here, being that he's sort of the senior/veteran on the squad, it seems he forces his teammates to adjust to him and make up for his deficiencies.

    In other words, here, he has no "accountability".

    I love Chuck Person to death. My favorite all time Pacer. But Chuck sort of was a guy who was the senior guy on the squad who ended up having to get traded to make things work out better. Until he got traded, he was the "leader" of the team, and I think Reggie was kind of a sidekick. I think Danny sort of suffers from that same syndrome that maybe Chuckles did. I don't think the Pacers would have had the same success without that trade.

    Ksutton, I don't know how long you have been a Pacer fan, but I'm curious to get your thoughts on the Chuck comparison.

    I actually like the Chuck comparison, which i didn't even think of. I thought we were crazy for trading "The Rifleman." Clearly the trade worked out in our favor though.

    It seems apparent to me that Roy is the guy we need to build around now. It is much easier to build around a big man than a wing player. As long as Granger is around, the pacers will never be Roy's team.
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Time to trade Granger

      Was anyone really this unhappy with Granger before Wednesday? Let's see if he rebounds from these bad games.

      I think he's always going to have nights like these, but I do hope that he can have about 2 good ones for every bad one over the course of the year.

      Also, Danny will never be a superstar. He is a general 'star' though. Some nights he plays like a very good player, other nights he doesn't. That's just who he is.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Time to trade Granger

        The trade worked out but still makes you want to throw up. Chuck and Micheal Williams for Pooh and Sam Mitchell?? I still don't understand it. But the old saying is "addition by subtraction".
        "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Time to trade Granger

          Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
          I've always said Danny is a Pippen type player. Robin built the Batcave now we need Batman......lol.
          Pippen was a Batman. He just never was without Jordan long enough to prove it. Except that the year Jordan retired the Bulls still won 55 games without him. Pippen was a Batman player, Granger is nowhere near Pippens level. Not ..... even ..... close.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Time to trade Granger

            Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
            Just for fun - any ideas on what player/picks we would expect in return for Danny Granger's "talents"?

            That is another tricky part of this equation, I presume you look for a power forward or two guard with the idea of plugging PG into the three spot.

            Al Horford?
            i actually wouldn't mind Jon Salmons. seems to play more like a man than Danny.
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Time to trade Granger

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Was anyone really this unhappy with Granger before Wednesday? Let's see if he rebounds from these bad games.

              I think he's always going to have nights like these, but I do hope that he can have about 2 good ones for every bad one over the course of the year.

              Also, Danny will never be a superstar. He is a general 'star' though. Some nights he plays like a very good player, other nights he doesn't. That's just who he is.
              Hicks, I think people were concerned. I think it started over the summer. I certainly was concerned in the preseason.

              Yes he is a general star. But is he a star to build around?? I think he's helped keep us afloat for the past few years, great. But I don't see him being a centerpiece part of a championship team. Least of all for the Pacers. We are still at least 5 years away from even talking about that kind of level of squad if things pan out. I think he could be traded for something younger that could be more integral to the kind of team we want if that day comes in the future years.
              "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Time to trade Granger

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                Pippen was a Batman. He just never was without Jordan long enough to prove it. Except that the year Jordan retired the Bulls still won 55 games without him. Pippen was a Batman player, Granger is nowhere near Pippens level. Not ..... even ..... close.
                "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Time to trade Granger

                  Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                  Glad someone agrees.

                  I found a ton of Pippen YouTube video's in the past. Ones that were made clearly by some crazed fan that separated every video by defense, offense, blocked shots, steals, dunks, 3's .... a several minute video for each. It would clearly illustrate the difference between the two.

                  Maybe I should make a thread with nothing but those video's put an end to this silly comparison I've seen a LOT of people make on here. I don't put a ton of stock in highlight videos but most of the plays in these video's I've never seen Granger even come close to, and there's a ton of them. Especially the defense, ball handling, and passing.

                  Most of the people making the comparison I'm going to guess didn't watch Pippen play until he was in Houston.
                  Last edited by xBulletproof; 11-06-2010, 04:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Time to trade Granger

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    Cliche comment coming...

                    The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons would beg to differ, and our team is younger than they were at the time.

                    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

                    I would like to think we have a better collection of talent to work with and groom. Only if we had the right coach...
                    I would have to disagree with that.

                    Pistons had Chauncey Billups, taken #3 in the draft 2 spots after Duncan. They had Rasheed Wallace, taken #4 overall and one spot above KG. They had Rip Hamilton taken #7 overall in another strong draft. Those were 3 of their 4 best players.

                    Pistons weren't a bunch of superstars, but they were also pretty darn talented individually. A lot more talented than people give them credit for. Give credit to Dumars for putting together a bunch of guys who didn't quite cut it in their initial stops in the league, but those guys were pretty darn talented and highly regarded as individual talents.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Time to trade Granger

                      Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                      Pippen was a Batman. He just never was without Jordan long enough to prove it. Except that the year Jordan retired the Bulls still won 55 games without him. Pippen was a Batman player, Granger is nowhere near Pippens level. Not ..... even ..... close.
                      Granger is closer to being the Joker or the Riddler these days...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Time to trade Granger

                        It's almost crazy to me that in professional sports after someone has a few bad games or starts the year slow people are already jumping ship and yelling for that guy to be traded.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Time to trade Granger

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          Cliche comment coming...

                          The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons would beg to differ, and our team is younger than they were at the time.

                          http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

                          I would like to think we have a better collection of talent to work with and groom. Only if we had the right coach...
                          and that was a once in a generation team in a very watered down league. every other team to win a championship since the 70s has been led by a superstar.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Time to trade Granger

                            Originally posted by d_c View Post
                            I would have to disagree with that.

                            Pistons had Chauncey Billups, taken #3 in the draft 2 spots after Duncan. They had Rasheed Wallace, taken #4 overall and one spot above KG. They had Rip Hamilton taken #7 overall in another strong draft. Those were 3 of their 4 best players.

                            Pistons weren't a bunch of superstars, but they were also pretty darn talented individually. A lot more talented than people give them credit for. Give credit to Dumars for putting together a bunch of guys who didn't quite cut it in their initial stops in the league, but those guys were pretty darn talented and highly regarded as individual talents.
                            the 03-04 Pistons were the only team without a true "superstar" that has won a title. I still can't figure out how they beat Shaq and Kobe.

                            Sorry, but you DO need a superstar to win a title.
                            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Time to trade Granger

                              Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                              It's almost crazy to me that in professional sports after someone has a few bad games or starts the year slow people are already jumping ship and yelling for that guy to be traded.
                              Um have you seen the threads on this site? Half the people here are looking off the side of a cliff at the other half of the posters who have already jumped. And the saddest thing is most of them will by game 15.
                              JOB is a silly man

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Time to trade Granger

                                Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
                                We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.
                                Decent veterans are a dime a dozen. Granger is a unique talent. Smart teams never trade talent for veterans.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X