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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
    N=1/2 pre-season game?

    Lance has looked great in all 3 games this year and pretty damn good last season.
    I have already answered your questions so I will just quote myself:

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    During the pre-season did you see Danny playing fine with the second unit? I certainly didn't. On the other hand, he looked great when he played with the starters. Then again it was a small sample size and it was pre-season as well.
    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    If you asked me before the season I'd say that Danny provides better spacing because this is what the numbers indicate. However, Lance is shooting so well at the moment that he is making that point moot. Right now he seems like an awesome fit in both units and I'm extremely glad about that.
    Are we clear?
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Harden is a lot more like Lance. Harden can both score and facilitate. Lance can score and facilitate as well. Danny is not good at facilitating.
      Which is why our bigs will starve. LeBron will enjoy being guarded by Danny as well. He'll be able to operate the offense easily compared to facing Paul George who will instead be chasing DWade around the floor...as LeBron easily dishes to Birdman for a dunk or Chalmers for a three because Danny can't move fast enough to get into the passing lanes........

      Edit: the thought of an aging and, at best, recovering Granger guarding LeBron James is a HORRIBLE thought.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 11-02-2013, 11:54 PM.
      Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        I'm pretty sure that Bird is going to trade one or more members of the bench if the danger of losing Lance appears.
        I assume that will be the case ( bye bye Copeland )......with the way Lance is playing, I guarantee u that he will get a contract in between $6 to 8 mil a year. It will be more than the full MLE and at most what GH got. He's a Sixth Man to Starter quality Combo Player and will be paid accordingly.

        I think that the Pacers will need to clear $2 to 3 mil in salary cap to offer Lance such an offer.
        Last edited by CableKC; 11-02-2013, 11:53 PM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          This isn't meant to sound cold, but our team isn't about what makes Granger looks best. He hasn't been a part of this team since the end of 11-12, and several guys' roles have changed since then while the team made it to Game 7 of the ECF's. It's looking like the Pacers will be at their best with the current starting lineup. Even if Granger looks better with the starters, it's still a bad move overall if the team itself isn't as strong. This team shouldn't revolve around doing what's easiest for Granger.
          Who said that I want the team to do what's easiest for Granger?

          A team plays at its best when its players play at their best. It's really, really simple.

          Hibbert at his best + West at his best + PG at his best + Lance at his best + George Hill at his best + Danny at his best + Scola at his best + Ian at his best + CJ Watson at his best + Orlando Johnson at his best + Solomon Hill at his best = Indiana Pacers at their best.

          The goal is to have this team play at its best, right? Isn't this what we want to do?
          Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
          Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

          Panopticon

          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            I agree with about half of this. Rather than point out difference, I have a question.

            What happens if Danny plays, gets up to maybe 85%, then he builds up enough scar tissue (again) by March that he can't finish the season? All that time spent when Lance could be fine tuning his game with the starters?

            Based on my readings, that tendon will never be the same physically. It has been operated on and scraped. There will always be scar tissue and I suspect it will be more susceptible to inflammation and building up more of it.

            What a shame if that happens when we could have used Danny as a "plus" for the bench. Instead, he upsets the starting unit that will indeed close the vast majority of the time, particularly in the playoffs against Miami.
            Lance has played 100 games with the starters between last season, post season and this season. Even if he comes off the bench, Lance will still play with the starters. As well as practice with the starters.

            I don't know why so many Lance "supporters" are acting like if Lance comes off the bench, he won't get any burn with the first unit. And if he does start, Danny won't get any time with the starters. Thats not how its going to work. You can see that right now with how Vogel is using Lance. If Granger starts all season until March and goes down with an injury, Lance's chemistry with the starters is the last thing I'm worried about. Because he will have chemistry with the starters, he already does. Thats not just going to disappear. It doesn't work like that.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Which is why our bigs will starve. LeBron will enjoy being guarded by Danny as well. He'll be able to operate the offense easily compared to facing Paul George who will instead be chasing DWade around the floor...as LeBron easily dishes to Birdman for a dunk or Chalmers for a three because Danny can't move fast enough to get into the passing lanes........

              Edit: the thought of an aging and, at best, recovering Granger guarding LeBron James is a HORRIBLE thought.
              Things are so black and white to you. Its either option A or B. Rather than the mix which is what we will have.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                Who said that I want the team to do what's easiest for Granger?

                A team plays at its best when its players play at their best. It's really, really simple.

                Hibbert at his best + West at his best + PG at his best + Lance at his best + George Hill at his best + Danny at his best + Scola at his best + Ian at his best + CJ Watson at his best + Orlando Johnson at his best + Solomon Hill at his best = Indiana Pacers at their best.

                The goal is to have this team play at its best, right? Isn't this what we want to do?

                Sure in theory, but my point is that if the current starting unit is what's best for the team, then it really doesn't matter what's best for Granger. My point is that even if Granger himself looks better with the starters, it's still not a good thing if the team is even better with Lance starting.

                When a team is as stacked as the Pacers, sometimes you can't maximize every single player.

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Which is why our bigs will starve. LeBron will enjoy being guarded by Danny as well. He'll be able to operate the offense easily compared to facing Paul George who will instead be chasing DWade around the floor...as LeBron easily dishes to Birdman for a dunk or Chalmers for a three because Danny can't move fast enough to get into the passing lanes........

                  Edit: the thought of an aging and, at best, recovering Granger guarding LeBron James is a HORRIBLE thought.
                  Paul George will guard the opposition's best player. Period.

                  One of the reasons that the Heat were able to crowd our bigs in the post was because they didn't respect Lance's 3 point shot. Lance shot 30.4% from 3 in the ECF series and didn't make the Heat pay for cheating off of him. The situation was even worse when Sam Young played because it allowed LeBron to play free safety since he knew that Sam wouldn't score.

                  Now, if Lance keeps up the shooting that he is exhibiting NOW. Then hell yeah. It will be a lot harder for them to guard us. But Lance has to keep this up. Please, keep it up, Lance
                  Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                  Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                  Panopticon

                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                    Things are so black and white to you. Its either option A or B. Rather than the mix which is what we will have.
                    Let's say the score is tied with a minute to go against Miami in the playoffs. Are you saying you want Granger guarding LeBron? Honestly, I don't think Granger has the foot speed to adequately guard either LeBron or DWade.
                    Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Sure in theory, but my point is that if the current starting unit is what's best for the team, then it really doesn't matter what's best for Granger. My point is that even if Granger himself looks better with the starters, it's still not a good thing if the team is even better with Lance starting.

                      When a team is as stacked as the Pacers, sometimes you can't maximize every single player.
                      If Lance is awesome with both the starters and the bench while Danny is awesome with the starters but mediocre with the bench what will you do? Because honestly this is what I think that will happen. I don't think that the bench would work with Danny since he is not a facilitator.
                      Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                      Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                      Panopticon

                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I agree with about half of this. Rather than point out difference, I have a question.

                        What happens if Danny plays, gets up to maybe 85%, then he builds up enough scar tissue (again) by March that he can't finish the season? All that time spent when Lance could be fine tuning his game with the starters?

                        Based on my readings, that tendon will never be the same physically. It has been operated on and scraped. There will always be scar tissue and I suspect it will be more susceptible to inflammation and building up more of it.

                        What a shame if that happens when we could have used Danny as a "plus" for the bench. Instead, he upsets the starting unit that will indeed close the vast majority of the time, particularly in the playoffs against Miami.
                        My answer is simple: I don't think a change from Granger to Stephenson would upset anything. George Hill was leading our team in touches by far, and we still did fine with him sitting. I believe you go with your best lineup at the given time. With Granger coming off of a fresh injury while still rehabbing from the old, make him prove he's recovered from all short-term injury problems. Once he's playing 25+ minutes without incident and 10 games or so off the bench, move him to the starting unit. The only caveat being that if while Granger is coming off the bench the Pacers are just steamrolling everybody, you don't make that change.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Paul George will guard the opposition's best player. Period.
                          LeBron? Then we are cool. Granger in no way can guard DWade.
                          Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                            My answer is simple: I don't think a change from Granger to Stephenson would upset anything. George Hill was leading our team in touches by far, and we still did fine with him sitting. I believe you go with your best lineup at the given time. With Granger coming off of a fresh injury while still rehabbing from the old, make him prove he's recovered from all short-term injury problems. Once he's playing 25+ minutes without incident and 10 games or so off the bench, move him to the starting unit. The only caveat being that if while Granger is coming off the bench the Pacers are just steamrolling everybody, you don't make that change.
                            Well, we are 3-0 right now. So, you would start Granger even if Lance is playing better huh? Personally, if Granger comes back and plays better than Lance, I want Granger playing with the starters. Ain't happening though.
                            Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              You seriously want to base your statement on a half pre-season game with Danny playing great and ignore how lance performed with the starting unit over a year?

                              OK, that's fine. We don't need to discuss this further.

                              Are we clear?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                If Lance is awesome with both the starters and the bench while Danny is awesome with the starters but mediocre with the bench what will you do? Because honestly this is what I think that will happen. I don't think that the bench would work with Danny since he is not a facilitator.
                                I think Granger will play with one of Stephenson or George regardless if hes coming off the bench or not.

                                Granger will most likely replace Orlando Johnson/Solo Hill off the bench.

                                SG: Stephenson (32 minutes), Granger (16 minutes)
                                SF: George (36 minutes), Granger (12 minutes)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X