Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Granger - Turner

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

  • #91
    Re: Granger - Turner

    Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    Thanks to his awesome 36% shooting, right? Correlation must equal causation, am I right? We would've been even worse off holding onto Chucky, having him injure himself again & being forced to give major minutes to Solomon Hill.

    You guys watch too much Disney. Granger was never much of a leader and he was in steady decline even before he became a rehab regular.
    I didn't get anywhere near saying Danny led us to that record, I was refuting MillerTime's ignorant post implying that Danny's return was what caused our decline. Our decline had nothing to do with Danny Granger entering into the mix, and it has everything to do with our starting 5 playing terribly. The start of the bad play came shortly before the allstar break, but it's been snowballing since then.

    And even if you want to say Danny isn't a leader, he clearly had the ears of our young players and he knows how to play to score even when defenses key in on you.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 04-12-2014, 12:30 PM.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Granger - Turner

      7-11 - Pacers' record while Watson was out.

      44-15 - Pacers' record with Watson.

      With all the comparisons of the record before and after the Granger trade, I thought I'd add this to the mix.

      (copied over from the Watson is better than Hill thread)

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Granger - Turner

        Originally posted by owl View Post
        The Miami Heat have Lebron James. UD or not they would still be a contender. The Pacers are not strong mentally and it shows. Losing DG sent them into a tailspin??
        I do not buy that. There are other issues. I contend they overachieved that past 2 years. They need to shuffle the deck and start over. Keep PG and West and maybe some
        of the subs. Everyone else is fairgame. The Pacers are also very young. I am concerned about PG's commitment.
        I don't think anyone is actually saying that Danny is the entire reason for the downfall, there were certainly troubling signs before he left. But at the end of the day I do believe that his departure and Turners failure to thrive did take an unstable situation and make it critical.

        There wouldn't be an issue at all if Turner would have come here and avg. 12-14 ppg or hell even 10. But as it stands he is scoring less than Granger did when he was here and there is not even a comparison about the defense.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Granger - Turner

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          I don't think anyone is actually saying that Danny is the entire reason for the downfall, there were certainly troubling signs before he left. But at the end of the day I do believe that his departure and Turners failure to thrive did take an unstable situation and make it critical.

          There wouldn't be an issue at all if Turner would have come here and avg. 12-14 ppg or hell even 10. But as it stands he is scoring less than Granger did when he was here and there is not even a comparison about the defense.
          It's not even close to the only reason but losing Danny is a very big reason we've fell apart.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Granger - Turner

            Granger's departure played a factor. However, Bird doesn't make the trade to begin with if the wheels weren't already starting to come off. We may be missing Granger's leadership in the locker room, but we also couldn't afford to get no production from our bench wings. With Granger's latest injury, I have serious doubts whether he would've help us for either. A bench wing group of Rasual Butler and Solomon Hill isn't going to get it done.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Granger - Turner

              Bunches hens clucking in a henhouse. Inventing stuff.

              Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Granger - Turner

                There were multiple factors causing this team's demise. Granger being traded was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Bynum acquisition was another one. Paul's baby mama drama and selfie pictures was a big issue. Lance needing structure and losing a lot of that made the problem worse. Granger being traded probably put Hibbert into a mental tail spin with everything else going on. DWest cannot, by himself, keep this all together.

                So, here we are. I do think that if Granger had not been traded they might have been able to right the ship but that's not clear. This season is certainly over and we can only hope for the best in the offseason with some adjustments. Sadly, we have no idea if Hibbert will ever return to form.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Granger - Turner

                  Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                  Yeah, it is real easy for Miami to say they wouldn't have made that trade, they have a championship level roster. Bird obviously felt the Pacers as they were constructed were not championship caliber. I think most fans based on how we were playing would agree. The fact is Bird felt we were close, but not there. He played his hand and it is not working out, but at least he played his hand.

                  Lets not forget the Heat let Mike Miller go just because they didn't want to pay him. He was, by all accounts, a good glue guy who contributed to a few championships. Despite this loss the Heat appear poised to gain the #1 seed in the East again.

                  Just because Miami (who has won back to back titles) wouldn't trade Udonis does not mean that Bird was wrong for thinking that the Pacers were not a contender and a move needed to be made.

                  These of course are just my .02. As always feel free to disagree.
                  The Pacers had a GREAT record prior to the trade. Was the team suppose to be undefeated or had a historic record before you considered them to be a contender? Before the trade and minus a few bad games, Indiana was DESTROYING the competition with history making defense and with the LARGEST point differential in the league. Indiana didn't need to make this trade. Plain and simple.


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Granger - Turner

                    No, Indy started playing worse way before the trade, we were still winning, but the decline was already well underway.

                    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger - Turner

                      At this point, it's hard to argue that the trade didn't have some effect. Obviously it would have been nice to have Granger's locker room presence around as this thing spiraled out of control. And then there's the fact that Turner has not been good.

                      If Granger's absence has been a big factor in this, it really does speak volumes about the mental fragility of our starting unit, which is very disappointing. This will be the third straight postseason in which Hill/PG/West/Hibbert have started together. The entire starting unit was one game away from the Finals last year and they basically got there by themselves with almost no help from the bench. I completely understand that Granger was a role model for these guys and had a big locker room presence, no doubt about that. But at this point, these guys should have developed their own leadership qualities and should be expected to swim without him. Roy Hibbert is a 6 year vet who is the longest tenured member on the team. He's shown absolutely no leadership whatsoever.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-13-2014, 11:03 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger - Turner

                        Granger wasn't good off the bench, and neither is Turner. No matter who plays for our second unit, they struggle
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger - Turner

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          No, Indy started playing worse way before the trade, we were still winning, but the decline was already well underway.

                          Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                          Since we're looking at Granger's stats in a vacuum, let's look at the team's record in vacuum. 44-12 before the All-Star break...history making defense...largest point differential in the league.

                          Let me say it again. 44-12 yet Bird STILL thought this team wasn't good enough to win a championship. The trade wasn't needed. Period. Do you want the team to apologize to Bird for not having an undefeated record before the trade?


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger - Turner

                            For the record, not everyone is born to be a Leader. Bird traded the one guy who was willing to embrace the role. The trade took away the one leader we had, and now some of you are expecting leadership from people who have never been in the role for their entire basketball career. West is an enforcer while Chris Paul was the real leader of that team. Bird is using an hands off approach with the team. Vogel, video coordinator. Stephenson, NYC showboater. Hill, had Duncan. George, was never the Man before. Hibbert, yeah right.

                            Where is this Leadership supposed to be coming from???
                            Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 04-13-2014, 12:45 PM.


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger - Turner

                              I think KSuttonjr76 has hit on what a lot of folks see. Danny was the leader even though he wasn't playing. He was still the guy the wings could go to and ask about the guy they were guarding. The way they themselves were playing and what, if anything, they could do to perform better. That's leadership and morale boosting. I feel David West is and has been asked to take on the kind of leadership role he is not capable of providing. If you go to David and ask 'What am I doing wrong and how can I fix it? David probably says " Shut up and play." Which is good advice, but you're not David. In the locker room I'm sure David is the voice that stops the finger pointing and Bulls@@t, but, again everybody can't be David.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger - Turner

                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                                Since we're looking at Granger's stats in a vacuum, let's look at the team's record in vacuum. 44-12 before the All-Star break...history making defense...largest point differential in the league.

                                Let me say it again. 44-12 yet Bird STILL thought this team wasn't good enough to win a championship. The trade wasn't needed. Period. Do you want the team to apologize to Bird for not having an undefeated record before the trade?
                                God, let it go!

                                Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X