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

Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

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

  • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    I'd be hard pressed to have to pick between them, really, so the idea that it is so much of a no-brainer a conversation cannot be had is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.
    I would definitely go with West. But I completely agree that the hyperbole is out of order. It's certainly discussable.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird




      that's...something I guess?

      Comment


      • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        Last season Hill, Lance, George, West, and Hibbert(defensively) all showed improvement. So he wasn't just "replaced," the entire starting unit to a man played better than the previous year. Furthermore, with Granger already out Tyler did a great job of filling in for West when he was injured. Tyler is not nearly as good as Scola. I personally think Scola would do a better job replacing West than Lance+George did replacing George+Granger.
        The argument can be made that those players may not have had the chance to get better if Danny was in the lineup. Since he has been the focal part of the offense I don't think Paul George would have made the All-Star team and we would not have had to lean on West in November and December. But by battling through that they got better.

        Now I personally think Paul George would have gotten more shots than in 11-12. But not nearly the load he got last year. And David West got paid big because Danny was not shooting the 14fga he might have gotten.

        Comment


        • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

          I think the Granger and West debate is legit. But once you get into the locker room I think we all know that West is the leader that made a major difference. But one could say that Roy could take this role solo. So this is certainly debatable.

          And Scola outright replacing David West is laughable on this side of the season.

          Comment


          • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            The argument can be made that those players may not have had the chance to get better if Danny was in the lineup. Since he has been the focal part of the offense I don't think Paul George would have made the All-Star team and we would not have had to lean on West in November and December. But by battling through that they got better.

            Now I personally think Paul George would have gotten more shots than in 11-12. But not nearly the load he got last year. And David West got paid big because Danny was not shooting the 14fga he might have gotten.
            Paul has long been touted as a star on the rise. I'm a big believer that if someone has the talent and ability to be a star in the league then they will do so, no matter who is in the lineup. Paul most likely would have had a much more efficient offensive season, while being able to continue to demonstrate his great all around game as well. As long as we would have continued our success (highly likely) it's a good chance Paul would have still made the AS team. Him making All NBA third team is more unlikely.

            There are plenty of examples of teams having 2 really good offensive options from the perimeter, and I don't think it would have been out of the question that Paul would have been able to excel playing alongside Danny last year without having the pressure of being the lone consistent scoring threat from the wing position.

            As you stated however, I think DWest probably doesn't have as big of a season as he had offensively. Probably goes for, 17/gm, to something closer to 13-14/gm.

            Comment


            • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
              And David West got paid big because Danny was not shooting the 14fga he might have gotten.
              Not sure where this is coming from. In 2012-13, West got 13.1 FGA per game. In 2011-12, playing with Danny, he got 13.5 FGA per game. I don't see Danny being any reason why West would get fewer FGA per game.

              Now, if we wanted to consider the dynamics of the team itself and the fact that individual players have improved to the point where our offense has basically become an equal opportunity offense regarding shot distribution, I think you could be on to something.

              No one player is the cause of another player getting reduced FGA over the course of an entire season. It's just the fact that we have an improved roster with a greater number of "good" players that will get shots ( and are trusted with taking those shots) and the dynamics regarding how our offense is intended to work. Roy, West, Hill and George will probably perform consistent with last season. Most of us would expect additional improvement from Lance in areas that would lead to him possibly getting more shots. Add to that Danny and Scola and suddenly we have an abundance of very good players all getting their share of minutes and FGAs.

              Assuming a healthy Granger, those seven players might average 30-32 minutes a game. Throw in several minutes for Watson and Copeland, who will certainly be expected and encouraged to take shots, and you can see that the starters probably won't be asked to log as many minutes as they did last season. That also will have a bearing on the number of shots players may get compared to the last few years.

              I think we'll see much more balanced FGA among players, as well as minutes played and points scored.
              Last edited by beast23; 09-28-2013, 04:57 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                @ScottAgness: Granger was held out of practice after tweaking his back on a screen Tue. He did shoot and spent time on an elliptical. No concerns w knee.

                Glad is not the flu...
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  Maybe it is just me, it might just be a good PR on his part, but to me it sounded like if Danny comes back well and Lance doesn't make a huge improvement he would choose Danny over Lance. That kind of surprises me.
                  I would do this in a heartbeat. The "it must be Lance" angle is silly. Sure that could be the best choice, but as I said last year you might have an ideal situation if you trade the desirable Lance for a draft pick, say something in the 10-15 range. Danny will not fetch that kind of pick due to injury/age, but Lance as the up-n-comer could fetch a good pick.

                  Why do that? Because if you are paying either DG or Lance some money then you'll HAVE to have a cheap replacement for the other, and the best bargains are talented players on rookie deals. Lance probably gives you a better shot at trading for one of those. If you keep Lance then there's a chance that you have to outright let Danny walk due to the types of deals you are being offered (ie, forced to take salary back that you can't afford).

                  If Danny is playing at 8m level and the team can afford it if they trade Lance for a #13 pick, then that's a pretty good deal to keep a mature team together for 3-4 more years.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                    Something Trader Joe and I discussed last year during that blip before Danny called it quits/aggravated his knee but after he shook off some of the rust, a lot of fans have forgotten just how good Danny is and can still be.

                    Everyone remembers Danny in the era of "this team sucks" and quickly forgot him during last year. The prior year was slightly dismissed as a strike year, fluke run and a lot of attention drifted toward the rise of Roy and arrival of West.

                    But Danny can not only shoot but awkwardly but effectively drive for And-1 scores in the lane. He also defends the post much better than Paul. He rebounds pretty well. And really during that first series vs Miami the impact bounced back and forth from DG to Paul, plus Roy picking on crap centers. They really seemed to be a good tandem.


                    We always wanted to see Pippen paired with a Jordan (roles), so this could be it. Unless there is a reinjury I really think a lot of fans are going to be surprised as they are reminded of the level of DG's game.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                      One last thing, while I don't think DG has any plan to score 20 nor do I think he will need to, I think that the rest of the team matches his maturity and would have zero issue of letting him light it up every night if it was effective scoring within a productive system. Paul, Roy, George and David are not going to cry about touches if Danny's making good plays and crushing shots. In fact I'd say that every one of those guys will insist on feeding the hot player or the winning matchup, and are smart enough to recognize what that is. This is the team's biggest strength.

                      The PPG for this team is wide open. I don't think they'll force it to Paul, Roy, West, Scola or Danny. Those are your most likely candidates for winning scoring matchups, but none of them strike me as offensive ego types.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                        Why do that? Because if you are paying either DG or Lance some money then you'll HAVE to have a cheap replacement for the other, and the best bargains are talented players on rookie deals. Lance probably gives you a better shot at trading for one of those. If you keep Lance then there's a chance that you have to outright let Danny walk due to the types of deals you are being offered (ie, forced to take salary back that you can't afford).

                        If Danny is playing at 8m level and the team can afford it if they trade Lance for a #13 pick, then that's a pretty good deal to keep a mature team together for 3-4 more years.
                        Not necessarily. We lost Granger this past season and didn't replace him with any outside player, yet the team went to Game 7 of the ECF's. I don't buy that we must find a replacement for whoever we lose. And who is to say that Solomon Hill couldn't be that player? It's possible that he is better than whatever pick you could get for Stephenson. No way to know yet.

                        The Lance/Danny decision should be made based off which player we think will do the most to help us win from 2014 onward, not by which player will get us the best pick. In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't there be a reason that teams were willing to give us more for Lance than Danny? Wouldn't that mean that maybe we should look into keeping Lance ourselves? Again, it's all purely hypothetical, but I'm just going based off the hypo you gave.

                        I just don't see why letting Granger go for nothing is such a bad thing if it indeed comes to that. This team has already proven that it can go very far without him. That is not meant to imply that he can't help the team this season, but I think it does show that our decision should not be based off of what we think we can get in return for either player. It should instead be based off who we think will be the better long term investment for our franchise. If Granger blows Lance out of the water this year and makes us a considerably better basketball team, then keep Granger. If he doesn't contribute anything beyond being the fifth or so best player on the team, and if Lance continues to elevate his game, then let Granger walk and keep the young guy who can grow with the core you already have in place.

                        Hibbert/West/PG/Hill are the four man core that is irreplaceable. As things stand now, everything else can be moved around.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-02-2013, 11:33 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          But how does Scola do at saying AND ONE?
                          y uno?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Kravitz on Granger - a lot of interesting comments from Bird

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Not necessarily. We lost Granger this past season and didn't replace him with any outside player, yet the team went to Game 7 of the ECF's. I don't buy that we must find a replacement for whoever we lose. And who is to say that Solomon Hill couldn't be that player? It's possible that he is better than whatever pick you could get for Stephenson. No way to know yet.

                            The Lance/Danny decision should be made based off which player we think will do the most to help us win from 2014 onward, not by which player will get us the best pick. In your hypothetical scenario, wouldn't there be a reason that teams were willing to give us more for Lance than Danny? Wouldn't that mean that maybe we should look into keeping Lance ourselves? Again, it's all purely hypothetical, but I'm just going based off the hypo you gave.

                            I just don't see why letting Granger go for nothing is such a bad thing if it indeed comes to that. This team has already proven that it can go very far without him. That is not meant to imply that he can't help the team this season, but I think it does show that our decision should not be based off of what we think we can get in return for either player. It should instead be based off who we think will be the better long term investment for our franchise. If Granger blows Lance out of the water this year and makes us a considerably better basketball team, then keep Granger. If he doesn't contribute anything beyond being the fifth or so best player on the team, and if Lance continues to elevate his game, then let Granger walk and keep the young guy who can grow with the core you already have in place.

                            Hibbert/West/PG/Hill are the four man core that is irreplaceable. As things stand now, everything else can be moved around.

                            Or even Copeland. I think with Hill, Copeland, and OJ we will have enough talent to fill in if/when we have to choose between Granger and Lance. I agree that when we do pick 1, it's based on which one will fit best with our lineup going forward. Deep benches are good to have and all that, but by that time we will have at the least young veterans who can play at all 5 spots and if we pick anybody else up it's just gravy.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X