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

  • Re: Granger - Turner

    Did I miss something? I know Turner hasn't played great overall but I thought he played great against the Thunder...He even played good defense...He was on Durant sometimes and I thought he made him take tough shots...He also shared the ball well...I don't see why he can't do this consistently as long as he's not in the game with Lance...Even if he's playing with the starters, Id still rather Evan be the main ballhandler over George Hill or Paul George...

    Comment


    • Re: Granger - Turner

      Originally posted by timid View Post
      Did I miss something? I know Turner hasn't played great overall but I thought he played great against the Thunder...He even played good defense...He was on Durant sometimes and I thought he made him take tough shots...He also shared the ball well...I don't see why he can't do this consistently as long as he's not in the game with Lance...
      The turnovers were ugly, but yeah I really liked some of his passes to Scola and Watson.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger - Turner

        Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
        I know Turner is playing badly but I still like the trade long-term. Give him a full offseason and training camp to get everything down fully and get rapport with his team members.
        I was willing to contemplate that line of thought directly after the trade with Turner being a plan B if Lance were to become too expensive, but I've turned around a full 180 degrees. I definitely don't want us to sign him in the summer. Just a horrible, horrible fit on defense, positioning, too lose with the basketball, playstyle and decisionmaking that do not fit with our team AT ALL.
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • Re: Granger - Turner

          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
          I'd be a little surprised if he's back next year unless we trade Hill or something.

          Hill will get traded. If not in a package for a PG upgrade, probably just to clear space to sign a new one. You can always get a guy like Lou Williams, maybe Jamal Crawford, or sign Lowry or trade for Rondo. Too much point guard talent will be available next season to stand pat with Hill at that position. HE MUST go.

          As for Turner, Copeland backing up West is essential to that design. Turner is a good dish man when he isn't scoring. So we have Cj for one more season, and Cope. Drop Scola. Trade him or don't pay him for next season. And he'll sign elsewhere. Maybe trade Ian and re-sign LaVoy. Then go get Jodie Meeks or Nick Young. Our bench would be.....


          Copeland
          Turner
          Allen
          Young/Meeks
          Watson


          CJ is fine. Cope, if some believe he needs to get better defensively, let them work on that in the off-season when we're going over defensive schemes in training camp overall. Turner's foot-work/speed on defense, and shot can be upgraded over the Summer. But most of the thing with Evan is being embedded into the team to where he can feel more comfortable. You add a dead-eye shooter like Meeks or Young to that mix. LaVoy Allen's mid range jumper is worked on to become deadlier. Maybe also extend his range out to the 3pt line ala Chris Bosh. And our bench will be tops in the league in offense.

          Frank can then incorporate the defense. But we will need a new offensive-minded assistant to do all of the things listed above.

          Comment


          • Re: Granger - Turner

            At this point I see a greater chance in this team keeping both Lance and Turner and Hill get traded to accomplish this.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger - Turner

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              At this point I see a greater chance in this team keeping both Lance and Turner and Hill get traded to accomplish this.

              I agree. Unless Hill explodes in the playoff's for career highs across the board. He's toast. I just hope the front office doesn't trade him for youth and promise. Ala an Austin Rivers or something. We just need to send him to a team that has so many pure shooters who want the ball or need the ball, that they don't mind having a PG who does nothing offensively. Sacramento would be perfect. I'd like to have Isaiah Thomas as our PG, he can score. But he's shorter than Travis Best! I think defensively we'd HAVE TO DOUBLE.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger - Turner

                For all of you "trade Hill people" what do you want in return? At 8 mil/year I am not sure we could get a starting caliber PG. With that being the case why not just keep Hill?

                I don't think some of you understand that it is tough to move big/bad contracts and get value in return. The Pacers best bet is that hopefully Hill finds a rhythm and can contribute more consistently.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger - Turner

                  Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                  For all of you "trade Hill people" what do you want in return? At 8 mil/year I am not sure we could get a starting caliber PG. With that being the case why not just keep Hill?

                  I don't think some of you understand that it is tough to move big/bad contracts and get value in return. The Pacers best bet is that hopefully Hill finds a rhythm and can contribute more consistently.
                  Sure idealy you want a starting PG guard. But there is nothing wrong with bringing back some 3&D guys. I'd also prefer a young athletic big.

                  I'd actually look at getting Javale Mcgee.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger - Turner

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    For all of you "trade Hill people" what do you want in return? At 8 mil/year I am not sure we could get a starting caliber PG. With that being the case why not just keep Hill?

                    I don't think some of you understand that it is tough to move big/bad contracts and get value in return. The Pacers best bet is that hopefully Hill finds a rhythm and can contribute more consistently.
                    You could trade an $8 million contract for real solid bench pieces, which is what most see George as anyways(I don't).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger - Turner

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      For all of you "trade Hill people" what do you want in return? At 8 mil/year I am not sure we could get a starting caliber PG. With that being the case why not just keep Hill?

                      I don't think some of you understand that it is tough to move big/bad contracts and get value in return. The Pacers best bet is that hopefully Hill finds a rhythm and can contribute more consistently.



                      Ship him to a team that can absorb his contract and needs a vet who doesn't need the ball. Then use that slot to sign Lowry.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger - Turner

                        Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                        You could trade an $8 million contract for real solid bench pieces, which is what most see George as anyways(I don't).
                        I guess my thought is that a team would not give up much in terms of value taking George Hill at 8 million dollars off of our hands. IMO we would have to take back a bad contract to move Hill.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger - Turner

                          Also, aren't people ripping Bird for messing with the chemistry of the team by trading Granger? Now we want to mess with chemistry more and trade Hill? Well, which is it?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger - Turner

                            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                            Also, aren't people ripping Bird for messing with the chemistry of the team by trading Granger? Now we want to mess with chemistry more and trade Hill? Well, which is it?
                            Different people, same thread. Also, the timing is important. I don't want Hill traded, but if he were I would prefer it happen in the offseason and not at the deadline.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger - Turner

                              Originally posted by timid View Post
                              Did I miss something? I know Turner hasn't played great overall but I thought he played great against the Thunder...He even played good defense...He was on Durant sometimes and I thought he made him take tough shots...He also shared the ball well...I don't see why he can't do this consistently as long as he's not in the game with Lance...Even if he's playing with the starters, Id still rather Evan be the main ballhandler over George Hill or Paul George...
                              I thought the same thing, then looked at the box score. No points, 4 assists, 4 turnovers. He seemed like he played better because he only shot once and he assisted some Fast Break easy baskets which is rare in Pacerland. I thought OKC didn't exploit his defense, so ya I guess that's good D?

                              You could make the argument that Danny not playing is more valuable than ET playing, at times. Ponder that.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger - Turner

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                I thought the same thing, then looked at the box score. No points, 4 assists, 4 turnovers. He seemed like he played better because he only shot once and he assisted some Fast Break easy baskets which is rare in Pacerland. I thought OKC didn't exploit his defense, so ya I guess that's good D?

                                You could make the argument that Danny not playing is more valuable than ET playing, at times. Ponder that.


                                If they want more from him you have to play him without Lance or run stuff for him. They ran stuff for him in his first game as a Pacer. 13 pts. I think this is where next season, we need a coach who can scheme "O" and "D." Or an offensive assistant coach. Who draws up multiple plays for each weapon we have. But after his 21pt explosion vs. Milwaukee we know what he can do. He also played pretty good defense considering he was guarding Knight and Middleton in some scenarios. But when you look at the Bucks game, one thing Frank said afterwards was they ran most of their offense through Evan.

                                When you do that, he produces. When Lance is playing with the bench, the "O" runs through him. Hence the clash. It seems like with the bench, they need to scheme for the offense to run through Evan and Lance. A two pronged attack. And let Copeland, Scola, CJ get the pitch outs from the penetration moves. But I think it is kind of dumb to just run everything through Lance off the bench. When you have a second capable weapon.
                                Last edited by Grimp; 04-14-2014, 02:38 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X