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

Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

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

  • #61
    Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

    They aren't ready to win a title if the Granger trade is to blame for this slump.


    I don't think it is, btw.
    https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

    Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

      Honestly, if these guys can't get over it, then they were too soft to win a championship regardless. I don't know if either Turner or Bynum have promoted great chemistry, but I haven't heard that either one has been a malcontent either. I think speculating this or that is a waste of time because we haven't heard anything concrete. The starting 5 hasn't even been playing great together, and that's something that our additions (and subtractions) have had absolutely nothing to do with.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
        Honestly, if these guys can't get over it, then they were too soft to win a championship regardless..
        I hate these kind of statements because they ignore reality and how little difference there is between winning a championship and losing one. Teams are like a recipe, they are just perfectly balanced. Add a little extra of this or that, replace something with something different but similar, and a good recipe can turn to crap real fast. Some recipes are more resilient than others to change, but resilience to change isn't taken into consideration in taste tests.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          I hate these kind of statements because they ignore reality and how little difference there is between winning a championship and losing one. Teams are like a recipe, they are just perfectly balanced. Add a little extra of this or that, replace something with something different but similar, and a good recipe can turn to crap real fast. Some recipes are more resilient than others to change, but resilience to change isn't taken into consideration in taste tests.
          And I hate statements like this because they overestimate chemistry. We've made a couple of moves with bench players. We played our best basketball this year without Granger. The starting 5 was and will be the strength of this team regardless of who comes off the bench. That hasn't changed. There's no reason those guys can't play like they were in the beginning of the year, playing together and trusting one another. You're telling me they aren't because their feelings are hurt? You've got a cold blooded, two time champion and 4 time MVP, #6 in Miami...you think he's going to take it easy on us? Give me a break. Tough teams win champions, not Charmin Ultra teams.
          Last edited by PR07; 03-08-2014, 07:06 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            Also Turner is not a PG.
            That's for darn sure. Might have worked at the college level, but it won't cut it in the pros and especially the playoffs. I want either Watson or Hill in the game at all times.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              I'm not a fan of the moves mostly on a, it is the wrong way to go about winning a championship and in my opinion cheapens it a bit. I'm not a fan of buying a championship. When you have already built a team competing for a championship, those moves are akin to trying to buy it.
              not sure if serious or this is satire.....this makes absolutely no sense either way.

              Money wasn't even a factor in that trade, and even if it was, if money bothers you perhaps you should give up on professional sports.

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              I hate these kind of statements because they ignore reality and how little difference there is between winning a championship and losing one. Teams are like a recipe, they are just perfectly balanced. Add a little extra of this or that, replace something with something different but similar, and a good recipe can turn to crap real fast. Some recipes are more resilient than others to change, but resilience to change isn't taken into consideration in taste tests.
              You just refuted what he said and agreed with him at the same time.
              Last edited by Kstat; 03-09-2014, 12:13 AM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                And I hate statements like this because they overestimate chemistry. We've made a couple of moves with bench players. We played our best basketball this year without Granger. The starting 5 was and will be the strength of this team regardless of who comes off the bench. That hasn't changed. There's no reason those guys can't play like they were in the beginning of the year, playing together and trusting one another. You're telling me they aren't because their feelings are hurt? You've got a cold blooded, two time champion and 4 time MVP, #6 in Miami...you think he's going to take it easy on us? Give me a break. Tough teams win champions, not Charmin Ultra teams.
                Not chemistry, but fit and roles. Too much of one thing or not enough of something else can throw everything out of balance. But like I said, I doubt it is because of the Granger trade.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  not sure if serious or this is satire.....this makes absolutely no sense either way.



                  You just refuted what he said and agreed with him at the same time.
                  It isn't satire, and I don't know what you don't understand. There is a right way and a wrong way about doing things. I prefer to do things the right way, even if it makes the road more difficult.

                  How did I agree with him? Did you ignore the second half of that sentence?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    It isn't satire, and I don't know what you don't understand. There is a right way and a wrong way about doing things. I prefer to do things the right way, even if it makes the road more difficult.

                    How did I agree with him? Did you ignore the second half of that sentence?
                    What is the "right way" to build an NBA championship team that Larry Bird doesn't understand? Please tell us.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      What is the "right way" to build an NBA championship team that Larry Bird doesn't understand? Please tell us.
                      I don't think Bird cares about the right or wrong, as long as it is legal.

                      I have no desire to waste my time with you trying to get you to understand.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        I don't think Bird cares about the right or wrong, as long as it is legal.
                        There IS no right and wrong, as long as it is legal. That's the point. The NBA isn't a contest to see who's morally superior. There are winners, losers, and everyone else. The Miami Heat are the winners in this league, no matter what you think of them, and everyone else is chasing after what they have. You won't get it being afraid to hurt feelings and run your business like a business instead of a clubhouse for kids.

                        Being a winner himself, Bird understands this.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 03-09-2014, 12:28 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          There IS no right and wrong, as long as it is legal.
                          That's a slippery slope. And I'm not talking about the NBA in this case.
                          Last edited by Nuntius; 03-09-2014, 03:09 PM. Reason: forgot to write "not"
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            That's a slippery slope. And I'm talking about the NBA in this case.
                            That is a slippery slope no matter the subject matter. What is legal and what is right are not always equivalent.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1780370

                              That was a fun thread and it was fun to get the s*** kicked out of me by a bunch of people saying the Zeke year 3 team wasn't something that could happen or be happening.


                              This was in regards to the Bynum addition, not the Granger/Pulp deal, but the primary point was the same...CHEMISTRY IS DELICATE and we are 10 years removed from a nearly identical season up to this point. Finally breaking through to the top level, MVP candidate type is an AS starter, the team's center is an AS reserve, the team has the top record so their coach is the AS coach...and then the wheels come totally off.

                              I said in that thread that it's already happened TO VOGEL when he tried to incorporate Lance into the rotation that first year and a team that had been in a groove completely went south till Lance was pulled back out of the rotation.


                              And all the 20/20 hindsight people went "oh but this is different, we all know why that happened". No one knew either of those things was definitely about to happen. Not Peck (who didn't like that roster), not me, not any of us older fans who had seen it all, not any of the local or national writers. None of us thought "post AS I'm sure the Pacers will have one of the worst records, fall to the 3rd seed and lose in round 1 ending with the coach being fired". Not one single person thought that as they watched Brad Miller play in the ASG that weekend. Trouble maintaining maybe? Isiah being overrated as a coach? Sure. But not "I bet they have an epic implosion now".

                              And no one thought "I bet they go down to Houston and just get demolished by a sub-par team" followed by a locker room fight while they were in the midst of the Vogel hot start, especially with vets like Foster, Dunleavy, DJones and Granger in the locker room.


                              After the fact you start to learn about all the nasty issues and problems, and honestly there are plenty of other seasons with nasty issues that DO NOT SHOW UP because the team is able to keep winning at the same pace. The Atlanta strip club didn't send the Reggie/Dale Pacers into the tank as far as we know.



                              Paul's got baby mama drama, remember. The team was annoyed by the Bynum signing and the questions around it, along with a bit of annoyance that mgmt thought they needed more help, they loved Danny and it clearly shook up guys like Roy (I don't want to talk about it) and Paul.

                              It's not like they are cruising around on the Good Ship Lollypop here, they've got issues even if they have maturity and good guys in the locker room.



                              I can see a path to them getting things straightened out, I just think it's going to be too late by then. This is why it's so hard to win a title and why you have to respect teams that can put up 58+ wins year after year after year.


                              But they have been WAY TOO COMPLACENT the last month in regards to their poor play. Solomon Hill was even giving the company line of "they are just gunning for us, they have nothing to lose, they are just hitting tough shots" when none of that makes much sense.

                              Teams are gunning for all the other top teams that are not falling apart (like LAC), most of the teams with nothing to lose have more to gain by tanking (a popular misconception that many teams believe), and teams don't just lucky against you for a month straight without your defense having something to do with it.



                              As I said on Twitter, I'm not off this wagon. I'm riding this flaming wooden death cart right off the cliff with the team...but I'll be shocked if that isn't the final outcome. I'll suffer through every bitter moment even as my hopes fade. At the very least it was an awesome first half....and who knows, maybe a last second save of this clusterf*** will be part of the story.

                              There's not a shred of evidence to show that the Bynum addition has had any sort of causation with the poor play. The guy who he was logically brought in to take minutes from, Mahinmi, has only played the best basketball of his Pacer career since Bynum was added. So I fail to see how it's somehow affected the guys whose jobs weren't put in jeopardy by Bynum coming in. It's Bynum's fault that Paul George put up a deuce in Charlotte? It's Bynum's fault that Roy often looks like a complete wuss on offense, when Roy has a YEARS long pattern of disappearing like this? It's Bynum's fault that Scola went through a two month long slump where he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? David West, who had some of the more pissy quotes after the Bynum addition, has played the best ball of the season since Bynum was added. So I guess Bynum should get some credit for that since his addition gets blamed for things going south?

                              All of the pissy quotes from our players about Bynum were right after he was added and before he even showed up. Since he got to Indy, I haven't heard anything negative. He's said the right things, has apparently worked very hard, and has yucked it up on the bench with his teammates quite a bit. I don't know if he will help us on the court, but I think that the idea that his addition has negatively affected the team has some pretty flimsy evidence. It makes for some convenient correlation, but there is nothing to show causation. Our problems are because players who were playing good at the beginning of the season aren't getting the job done right now. I don't think it's Bynum's fault that Roy let Al Jefferson and Dwight Howard made him look like Raggedy Ann.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                There IS no right and wrong, as long as it is legal. That's the point. The NBA isn't a contest to see who's morally superior. There are winners, losers, and everyone else. The Miami Heat are the winners in this league, no matter what you think of them, and everyone else is chasing after what they have. You won't get it being afraid to hurt feelings and run your business like a business instead of a clubhouse for kids.

                                Being a winner himself, Bird understands this.
                                In the end, the players are going to decide who wins the games. Bird has to deal with that. He may acquire the best talent in the world...and make all good trades...but if they are not pleased with the moves he's made, things just might not go well. It shouldn't be that way I agree. They all should be professionals and understand that even a faithful Pacer like Granger can be set aside like a used up doll. But it does matter. They are friends and human beings and they do want a say. Perhaps that's not their role. But in the end it does matter what they think their role might be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X