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.

    http://instagram.com/p/gTjH1AJGBu/

    Remember when we worried about Lance's maturity? I'm not all that concerned anymore.
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

      Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

      Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

      Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


      So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

      Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
      Your math is off. Player A misses 6 shots not 4. So, the difference is only 2 shots.
      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 Hicks View Post
        I've always had mixed feelings about that image. It's so right in one sense, yet on the other hand it's human nature to be negatively captivated by another human being when you hear, see, read them communicating a message you find false or otherwise 'wrong'. It can be difficult to ignore in any social context.
        Not that you're asking for life advice, but you (as in any one person) can't fix all that's wrong in the world (or worse, on the internet lol). Sometimes it's about picking your battles, etc.

        I think it might be worse on the internet because it takes so little investment to get sucked into an argument, and before long you realize you're in the middle of a flame war.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
          http://instagram.com/p/gTjH1AJGBu/

          Remember when we worried about Lance's maturity? I'm not all that concerned anymore.
          if Frank started rocking some Burberry instead of those weird clipped collar shirts he wore last year I'd appreciate it, just saying

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
            So to tie the analogy back to basketball, if Vogel came out and said "The numbers say this, and that makes sense to me, so that's why the decision was made the way it was" that would be intuition over integers because a human had the ultimate say? That seems to be what you're saying with the jury analogy. That it matters less which evidence they choose to believe (the physical evidence vs any eyewitness evidence for example) but rather just that a person is weighing all the evidence and using their judgement to decide which to put more credence to. Am I characterizing your position correctly?
            I think you're close. The jury determines what evidence they want to give preference to. They may determine that based on physical vs eye-witness or not. They decide. It's not a formula or a science. Someone is not thrown off the jury for being illogical. They actually DETERMINE what is logical. They are the ultimate judge, not any particular party's definition of "evidence."
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              And for those who'd argue it doesn't matter who starts, then why would you argue that Granger should start?
              Okay...I will give the same answer that I've been giving for the 100000th time in this thread.

              Unless there is a way to "start" Lance at the beginning of the game and then figure out some egg-timer rotation ( assuming that he's not red-hot from the field and therefore shouldn't be taken out ) where he would end up playing the majority of his minutes with the 2nd unit, doing this would likely result in pushing Lance to the Bench as the 6th Man ( while getting Starter Minutes ) and pushing Granger up into the Starting Lineup as a 4th/5th Scoring option.

              Starting Granger is the by-product of making Lance a "Super-Sub" a la Manu with the Spurs.....not because we want to bestow the Starting spot out of loyalty, favoritism to him or because we "hate" Lance and are willing to ignore all of the issues that Granger has now.

              NOTE - to be clear, so that it is not misunderstood for the millionth time....I am referring to the role that Manu played on that Team as a 6th Man that played Starter minutes while finishing games...not comparing the current Pacers to the Championship Spurs a few years back.

              Before you say, "Why on earth would you want to mess with a good thing and not put your Best lineup on the floor for the majority of the Time while settling for putting the lesser Player in the Starting lineup?"...my answer is that I am willing to accept any short comings that having Granger in the Starting Lineup ( cuz I do not believe that the dropoff from the Best lineup of GH/PG/West/Hibbert/Lance is that significant compared to the 2nd Best Lineup of GH/PG/West/Hibbert/Granger ) if it means having Lance greatly improve the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit.

              This doesn't mean that there won't be any minutes for the Best lineup that we have on the floor....nor does it mean that Lance won't close/finish games. It means that I am willing to live with more minutes of Granger in the Starting Lineup if it means improving the overall Team as a whole over the course of the regular season. Improving the offensive production of the bench by having Lance help create shots for the many shooters/scorers on the bench ( something that Granger CANNOT do ) would only decrease any heavy reliance on PG/GH/West/Hibbert....something that caused significant issues over the course of the regular season and Playoffs.

              This is something that I ( and many ) have been posting for the entire thread. We recognize that Lance is the better Player and that he makes up the BEST Lineup that Vogel can put on the floor. But that does not mean that we have to put him in the Starting Lineup for the entire Game if he is capable of improving the Team as a whole...which is what we are looking for in the end.
              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 BillS View Post
                Not completely.

                First, the jury isn't allowed to just introduce "well, the guy seems calm in court, so my eyes tell me he couldn't have violently assaulted someone". Therefore, some of the "intuition" is disallowed.

                Second, besides the lawyers and detectives, there is a judge who is educated in the weights that should be given to certain types of evidence and can instruct the jury appropriately. Therefore, it is someone who knows how the numbers work who is guiding the intuition.

                It all boils down to the idea that we are actually starting with objective facts that then are interpreted through the guidance of people who know how those facts are usually compiled. "Intuition over integers" too often is assumed to mean "the numbers don't mean anything compared to my gut feeling", which is not the way a jury works nor is it the way the world works. Numbers (statistics) are facts. What those facts add up to (the "truth", one might say) requires understanding how those numbers were compiled, what they do and do not say, and an ability to explain why if a number is counter-intuitive it comes out that way. That's thought and integers working together, not gut feeling ignoring the numbers altogether.
                Good post.

                I never said numbers, statistics, or evidence is not important. But, at the end of the day, whether Vogel or Bird is making a decision or juries are deciding someone's fate, their human judgment/intuition is the ultimate "judge."
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


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

                  And for those who'd argue it doesn't matter who starts, then why would you argue that Granger should start?
                  Pretty simple, we want the bench to be a "super bench" so moving the much better player(Danny "more efficient than Kobe Bryant" Granger) to the starting unit makes the bench more amazing, it's called the trickle down effect, plus we know that Lance is coming down to earth like a meteor making the bench even better.


                  Told you that it made sense
                  Last edited by vnzla81; 11-04-2013, 04:45 PM.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    Your math is off. Player A misses 6 shots not 4. So, the difference is only 2 shots.
                    Oops, that was dumb. My mistake.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      Not that you're asking for life advice, but you (as in any one person) can't fix all that's wrong in the world (or worse, on the internet lol). Sometimes it's about picking your battles, etc.

                      I think it might be worse on the internet because it takes so little investment to get sucked into an argument, and before long you realize you're in the middle of a flame war.
                      You're correct. Human nature fights this wisdom, is what I'm saying.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Yeah, it's my fault for pointing out that Hicks mentioned something specifically, and you changed who he was talking about specifically in order to make your point.
                        Hicks challenged my point that intuition and human judgment trumps statistics. He said the following:

                        You're basically poo-pooing documented evidence and the case itself because your gut tells you someone was or wasn't guilty
                        He was the one brought up the subject of evidence and someone being guilty or not. I really don't see me changing the subject so very greatly much.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                          http://instagram.com/p/gTjH1AJGBu/

                          Remember when we worried about Lance's maturity? I'm not all that concerned anymore.
                          LOL...his wife made him wear a shirt from Burberry.
                          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 McKeyFan View Post
                            Good post.

                            I never said numbers, statistics, or evidence is not important. But, at the end of the day, whether Vogel or Bird is making a decision or juries are deciding someone's fate, their human judgment/intuition is the ultimate "judge."
                            But what is that supposed to do or mean in regards to a disagreement where someone introduces statistics to support their opinion? Everybody uses intuition. So isn't the next step often going to involve identifying supportive facts?

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I don't understand why you're launching back into your views on Danny that aren't statistically-based while you are quoting a response having specifically to do with stats. It kind of confuses the flow of conversation.
                              It doesn't confuse me. I find most of the stats being tossed around in this thread meaningless to the debate.
                              Granger is a SF. We have a star SF already. Lance is a guard. A damned good one and the sky's the limit on his potential. Even if he doesn't get an ounce better he fits perfectly with what the Pacers have developed into.

                              Meanwhile, Granger is in a suit. Hasn't played meaningful minutes in some time. And there's no guarantee he will ever be the player he once was. And even if he was, it would be at a position we already have a younger, better player (Paul George).

                              The Danny vs Lance or vs George Hill is simply a moot point I think. It's really Danny versus Paul George and that debate is settled. So anyplace else you'd try to insert him into the starting lineup is just misguided at best. Danny Granger is a SF. Paul George is a SF. That's how I see it. We don't need to compromise to try and find a way to get them both into the starting lineup any longer because the pecking order is as clear as it's ever been, and because the team developed into something stronger than it's been in years while Danny's game has been in decline (for whatever reason) and then in a suit.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                Hicks challenged my point that intuition and human judgment trumps statistics. He said the following:



                                He was the one brought up the subject of evidence and someone being guilty or not. I really don't see me changing the subject so very greatly much.
                                I notice that you didn't quote the prior sentence, establishing who "you" is.

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Statistics are a collaboration from several eyeballs, designed to help generate a more accurate replication of what was seen so that we can look back and analyze what happened. Sort of like how detectives and lawyers document evidence and take witness testimony to try to piece together what happened at the scene of a crime. You're basically poo-pooing documented evidence and the case itself because your gut tells you someone was or wasn't guilty based off a smaller piece of the evidence pie that you managed to consume yourself personally.

                                I'm all for intuition. I just don't put it above integers. They both belong.
                                Jury or juror wasn't said, nor implied, but rather lawyer and detective were specifically said. Did you talk about lawyers or detectives? No, you started talking about jurys and jurors. You interjected jury and juror, and ONLY you.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X