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

Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

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

  • #76
    Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    My understanding is that ACL injuries have become rather dependable as far as recovery over time. This tendenosis or whatever seems a little more scary.
    ACL may have a dependable recovery time but it really limits a human being. Trust me, I have had an ACL and the knee is nowhere near the same it was pre-injury. Of course, pro athletes are going to get a far better treatment than an average bloke like me but in the end the knee will never be natural again.

    An ACL tear is a ligament tear. They replace that ligament with another ligament from your body (usually they take one from the thigh since it's sturdy enough) but it still is a ligament that wasn't supposed to be there. Micro-tears are quite probable since it's not 100% natural. An ACL injury limits several things in a basketball court. It limits a player's lateral movement, it limits the speed that one can change direction. In general, it limits explosiveness.

    Patellar tendinitis is an inflammation of the knee cap. At stage 4 it is a ligament tear and requires surgery. Since we don't know that Danny went to surgery, I'm going to assume that it never went to stage 4. It is treatable with injections and rest. If it didn't reach stage 4 then we have nothing to worry about. If it reached stage 4 then we can start worrying.

    As an injury it doesn't limit a player as much as an ACL tear. It only limits jumping ability. Danny is not high flier anyway so I don't think that he will be affected as much. The only problem I can see is that it might limit his rebounding ability and his elevation on his jumpers. However, I have faith that even with less elevation Danny will still be a great shooter. Shooting ability does not go away with any injury.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Why does it stun you? Some people here have made it clear that chemistry is just not sexy enough for them.
      It shouldn't. But, considering that the Pacers arguably have less talent than the 8-17 Sacramento Kings, you'd think more people would appreciate how important it is to have pieces that fit together.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Danny has been having issues with one of his knees since college, teams passed on him because they never thought he was going to last this long, maybe is not chronic or whatever but the point is that doctors knew that his career was going to be short, remember the team USA try out that he couldn't go to because he was having pain in his knee? or the games they rest him last year? that knee has been a problem for him.
        I didn't know this...the Team Doctors knew that Granger's career was going to be short when the Pacers drafted him?

        I'm not going to deny that Teams had concerns about his knee when he got drafted or that he has had on and off knee issues, but until the Team Doctors indicate that this knee problem and others is a result of a lingering knee issues from the past when he was drafted....I am not inclined to believe that this knee injury is considered a recurring concern.

        I'm not saying that his current knee injury is not a concern for other Teams when discussing trades ( something that I am sure that any Team interested in him would factor into his trade value ), I'm just saying that I never got the sense that his draft injury "knee" concerns ( as far as I am concerned a separate injury until we are told otherwise ) is something that has plagued him throughout the career.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          It shouldn't. But, considering that the Pacers arguably have less talent than the 8-17 Sacramento Kings, you'd think more people would appreciate how important it is to have pieces that fit together.
          I certainly agree
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I'm just saying that I never got the sense that his draft injury "knee" concerns ( as far as I am concerned a separate injury until we are told otherwise ) is something that has plagued him throughout the career.
            Patellar tendinitis is associated with stiff ankle movements and ankle sprains according to studies.

            http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/early...20552.abstract

            It isn't entirely a knee issue.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Think about it, lets say that his name is not Danny but Leo and he plays for the Wizards, would you trade for a player with knee issues that is making 13mil a year for the next two years? my answer is no.
              If he averaged about 20 ppg over the last 4 years while being known as a versatile player then yeah
              Originally posted by Piston Prince
              Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
              "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                If he averaged about 20 ppg over the last 4 years while being known as a versatile player then yeah
                Gilbert Arenas was that guy, Rashard Lewis was that guy, JO was that guy, I don't see a team trading for Danny unless the Pacers are willing to take another bad contract back.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                  That would be incredibly dumb.

                  First of all, why on earth would the Pacers want to break up a potential wing rotation of Granger and PG? They actually compliment each other really well. This always stuns me. Just so PG can be played at an irrelevant position number? When in actuality, he's going to defend the other team's best perimeter player.

                  I would think, this season would show how much Danny means to the Pacers, not that we should trade him.

                  PG is a match up nightmare at the 2, not at the 3. He can guard 2's efficiently, and he's length and size gives him advantages at the two that it doesn't give him at the 3. Essentially, we want PG to be defended by a 2, and we want PG to be defending the other team's best perimeter player. Danny's game compliment's PG's...so why get rid of him

                  And finally, it is absolutely impossible for the Pacers to get equal value for Danny. He's worth way more to Indiana than he would be to any other team. Also, what other wings are there on our team? Unless we get an actual point guard, and move Hill to the 2, we've got Lance, Green, and Young. Those are all bench players. Lance has made himself into a good bench player. And Young is a valuable piece if you need defense for a few minutes. And Green is infuriating. But they are all bench quality players. So essentially, we'd be trading Danny for someone who might not potentially fit in well with PG, and how is likely a worse player because Danny, a wing, is worth more to us than he is worth to any other team.

                  Great idea Chad.
                  Last edited by Sookie; 12-20-2012, 02:18 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                    And call me crazy but if Minny is willing to take Danny for Dwill+pick and other pieces I hope the Pacers take it.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Gilbert Arenas was that guy, Rashard Lewis was that guy, JO was that guy, I don't see a team trading for Danny unless the Pacers are willing to take another bad contract back.
                      Danny is an expiring deal next year. How is that a bad contract?


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                        At this point, a Danny Granger type of career is about the best that Derrick Williams could hope for. He's struggling to get minutes on a team that isn't exactly loaded at the SF position. I agree dude is talented, but we're already all frustrated with the lack of consistency on this team. Adding another young, unproven player who hasn't done much of anything in a yr and a half is only going to add to that problem this year.

                        Also, is he a 3 or is he a 4? If we play him as a 3, he's a bad fit next to Paul, and the rest of our starters IMO. I doubt we're able to maintain the high level of defense that we've been playing so far this season. Now if we're saying he's better suited to play the 4, then are we trading our starting SF who has given us 18+ ppg for the past 5 years for a guy that's going to be our back-up 4? Idk. Just doesn't sound like we're improving the team

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Danny is an expiring deal next year. How is that a bad contract?
                          26mil for two years for an injured player is a bad contract doesn't matter how you slice it, I bet if it was somebody else not name Danny Granger you would be the first person to make fun of that team.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                            Resign DWest and make a run for it next year while seeing what you have in a healthy Granger... If possible, resign Granger and if needed, max PG24. DG33 can be a very good compliment and with PG24, DWest and Roy, we need someone with outside shooting. Hopefully, he's not limited defensively (motility). He's a tremendous leader on this team and provides the veteran leadership along with DWest that this team needs.

                            I will say that tons of teams blew it by passing on DG in 2005. To say they passed on an All Star because they knew his career would be limited time was is bunk. One can't say that teams knew he'd have problems 7 years down the road. Plus 7 years of DG is so much better than Joey Graham, Sean May, Rashad McCants, Ike Diogu, Charlie Frye or Charlie V. DG was a beast in his team's conference championship that spring and showed no issues with his knee.

                            Also to say that Team USA knew of his knee issues is also bunk. Why keep a borderline player on that team with health issues when one can easily find another healthy player of similar ability?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              26mil for two years for an injured player is a bad contract doesn't matter how you slice it, I bet if it was somebody else not name Danny Granger you would be the first person to make fun of that team.
                              Any contract for a player who can't play is bad, right?

                              But how long is DG going to be out? Who knows?

                              Answer: Certainly not anybody on this website.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Chad Ford on Paul and Danny

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                That would be incredibly dumb.

                                First of all, why on earth would the Pacers want to break up a potential wing rotation of Granger and PG? They actually compliment each other really well. This always stuns me. Just so PG can be played at an irrelevant position number? When in actuality, he's going to defend the other team's best perimeter player.

                                I would think, this season would show how much Danny means to the Pacers, not that we should trade him.

                                PG is a match up nightmare at the 2, not at the 3. He can guard 2's efficiently, and he's length and size gives him advantages at the two that it doesn't give him at the 3. Essentially, we want PG to be defended by a 2, and we want PG to be defending the other team's best perimeter player. Danny's game compliment's PG's...so why get rid of him

                                And finally, it is absolutely impossible for the Pacers to get equal value for Danny. He's worth way more to Indiana than he would be to any other team. Also, what other wings are there on our team? Unless we get an actual point guard, and move Hill to the 2, we've got Lance, Green, and Young. Those are all bench players. Lance has made himself into a good bench player. And Young is a valuable piece if you need defense for a few minutes. And Green is infuriating. But they are all bench quality players. So essentially, we'd be trading Danny for someone who might not potentially fit in well with PG, and how is likely a worse player because Danny, a wing, is worth more to us than he is worth to any other team.

                                Great idea Chad.
                                I wish more people would think this way. It's easy to look at the numbers George is producing and think, "Well I guess he can replace Danny at the SF spot." But as another poster in a different thread said, "But who is going to replace Paul George?" We don't have a solid SG past Paul, and we're not going to get a dynamic SG for Danny Granger. Especially not one that also excels on defense.

                                The other thing is, even with Granger out Paul is still playing as a guard. He doesn't take the ball up the court off of makes, true. But he splits transition ballhandling duties with George Hill or our backup. I think if you counted the possessions where Stephenson and Paul are both out there, Paul handles the ball up the court more often than Stephenson. In the half court game, he scores like a SG. He works screens like a guard, and most of his scores start off of dribble drives from the perimeter. He creates for others as well; its not consistent, but he's had several nights with over 5 assists.

                                When Granger comes back and regains confidence in his knee we will resume being the matchup nightmare across all 5 positions that we were last year. Only this year we will be doing it with a more disciplined defense.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X