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

  • #76
    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Keep in mind, that for Lance to defend the 1 better than Hill, he'd basically have to become one of the two best point defenders in the league. While probably half the board doesn't appreciate Hill's defense because they don't understand how to defend the PnR, realize the rest of the NBA accurately recognizes Hill as one of the best point defenders in the NBA. (on top of that unlike fellow defensive stalwart Mike Conley, Hill can defend the 2, allowing PG to harass the 1).

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      For the record, I'm not really opposed to the idea of Lance at point. If the team didn't have a point, it'd be something the team would need to try. I think after a long time, and much development (read: there would be many games that would be train wrecks), Lance could potentially turn into a solid point. However, I don't think his ceiling is as high as Hill's current level at the point. Meanwhile, I think he has an extremely high ceiling at the 2.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by mattie View Post
        For the record, I'm not really opposed to the idea of Lance at point. If the team didn't have a point, it'd be something the team would need to try. I think after a long time, and much development (read: there would be many games that would be train wrecks), Lance could potentially turn into a solid point. However, I don't think his ceiling is as high as Hill's current level at the point. Meanwhile, I think he has an extremely high ceiling at the 2.
        Spot on. I mean, I'm sure LBJ has the skills to play the PG position, but he's still at his best at SF or maybe even PF. Similarly, I think Lance's natural position is SG and Paul's natural position is SF. Why intentionally gimp your best 2 young players when you already have a perfectly good point guard in place?

        I get the loyalty to Granger, I think it's admirable really. But IMO, even at his best he would be less important on this team than Hill simply because Paul G can do everything he does, and better even.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          I think I would still prefer Hill to start because I don't think Lance and Paul are good enough against pressure defenses yet.
          I think you have several good arguments for keeping Hill at point. (Although I am open to Lance at that position), such as leadership, a calm head, etc. But the pressure defense thing is not one of them. Lance is actually better than Hill at this.

          Hill struggles, makes turnovers too much when doubled, and looks to be uncomfortable at the end of games when defenses clamp down. Lance excels at avoiding traps at this time of the game, and often Lance's number is called the run the offense in the last two minutes.
          Last edited by McKeyFan; 10-31-2013, 08:22 AM.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            I would never put Lance at the PG position, especially start him there. There's no way we move Hill and give Lance the starting role.

            Lance is a natural scorer, you don't put scorers at the PG position (example: AI was moved to SG and Snow played PG)
            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Until Granger proves that he can actually play, there's no reason to even consider him as a reason to make a major change. If he does play, it's a bonus. He better figure out how to help the team by coming off the bench. If he can't figure out how to do that, he either needs to be shipped out, or fitted for a permanent suit. If he doesn't play, we contend for a title anyway.

              As I said last year, Granger is superfluous.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Torn a bit on this. I want Lance on the floor but I don't care if he's labeled PG or SG. In either case I want him to initiate a lot of the offense. The key is that he has the skills to clean up his mistakes and imo the desire to do that. Given more time, I believe the rookie mistakes will continue to be less frequent...and his good plays will increase. Let him play like a poor man's LeBron because that is really who he is.
                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


                • #83
                  Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  I think you have several good arguments for keeping Hill at point. (Although I am open to Lance at that position), such as leadership, a calm head, etc. But the pressure defense thing is not one of them. Lance is actually better than Hill at this.

                  Hill struggles, makes turnovers too much when doubled, and looks to be uncomfortable at the end of games when defenses clamp down. Lance excels at avoiding traps at this time of the game, and often Lance's number is called the run the offense in the last two minutes.
                  If you think Lance is really trusted with the ball at the end of games, I invite you to pay attention to the next handful of close games. Unless Lance is lighting it up in the fourth quarter, the ball will go to Hill first. I have a feeling more games will end like last night with Lance being the tertiary ballhandler for the last 5 minutes of games.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    If you think Lance is really trusted with the ball at the end of games, I invite you to pay attention to the next handful of close games. Unless Lance is lighting it up in the fourth quarter, the ball will go to Hill first. I have a feeling more games will end like last night with Lance being the tertiary ballhandler for the last 5 minutes of games.
                    He may not be completely trusted yet, but that doesn't mean he's not capable. He just needs reps.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Lance’s biggest issue last year was consistency. For every good game he had 4 bad games were his mistakes outweighed his contributions. We’re 2 games in and although he’s made some stupid mistakes there haven’t been that many and his contributions for those 2 games have outweighed his mistakes. I’d like to wait until we see how he plays for the first 20 games to see if he’s really grown up yet. If he does continue at this level or even improves on it, I hate to say it but he’s gone. We won’t be able to afford another salary over 5-6 mil. and I don’t see Bird moving Hill.
                      I'll be interested to see how things pan out when Granger gets inserted into the lineup. Through the point he was injured he had earned the starting spot IMO. It would fullish to ignore that now but he'll need to show some consistancy himself before being trusted with it now.
                      Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                      Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        OK. Nobody really wanted Lance in the draft. Bird took a chance with him. He put Lance under his wing (hahahha) and brought him along. Always showing confidence and faith in him. He was the only player that Bird kept in touch on his year off. Lance pretty much owes where he's at in the league today to the guy that's going to negotiate for him to stay with this team.

                        How do you say NO to Bird ?? I know, I know - $$$$. But turning your back on the guy who helped get you to this level ................

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          OK. Nobody really wanted Lance in the draft. Bird took a chance with him. He put Lance under his wing (hahahha) and brought him along. Always showing confidence and faith in him. He was the only player that Bird kept in touch on his year off. Lance pretty much owes where he's at in the league today to the guy that's going to negotiate for him to stay with this team.

                          How do you say NO to Bird ?? I know, I know - $$$$. But turning your back on the guy who helped get you to this level ................
                          that's why you have an agent (remembers Brad) you can always say "i never thought that would happen!"
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Lance certainly has a great relationship with Bird, but he's going to chase the money, as he should. By NBA standards, he's been making absolute chump change for the last four seasons. He's seen all of his teammates make the millions, and he's going to be eager to finally cash in himself. If the Pacers can pay him, then he'll be happy to stay, but if they can't then it will be sayonara.

                            Young dudes don't leave money on the table when they're signing the first big contract of their careers. Everyone used to say how loyal Roy was to the Pacers, but he was ready to bolt for Portland in a heartbeat if the Pacers wouldn't have ponied up the money.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              That's a very big assumption that you are making there

                              I don't think that he will return to form...as in pre-injury form.....but I think that he will be able to contribute at a "6th Man" level to make a difference. He'll be able to contribute more than Chris Copeland/OJ/Solo but at most "on par" with Lance ( assuming that he's able to play about 75% of his game, of course ).

                              JMHO, of course.
                              Well this is the "BIG IF'S" thread, after all.

                              I don't really have the desire to argue about Granger vs. Hill, so I'll just say that I was writing under the assumption that Danny will be back and playing soon, and furthermore that he will look good / like his old self for most of the season. I would loosely definie his old self as how he was in the lockout season, but part of me thinks he might shoot a better FG% now that he's surrounded by talent, some of it superior talent, on offense.

                              If that's the Danny we're getting, I happen to prefer his size and game on the wing with Paul George more than I prefer George Hill on the wing next to PG. I believe Hill can spend some time at the wing, but I don't like the idea of doing that to start and end games.

                              I think those who felt his ideal place is as the first guard off the bench were right. He would basically be playing the role Leandro Barbosa played in the lockout season, and I think he would still help us a lot there.

                              That having all been said, I also believe this is all mere fantasy. Until proven otherwise, I assume he will start at PG all year long.

                              I just like this idea because I think it would be even better than what we already have, but I also think it's likely going to remain a fantasy.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Lance certainly has a great relationship with Bird, but he's going to chase the money, as he should. By NBA standards, he's been making absolute chump change for the last four seasons. He's seen all of his teammates make the millions, and he's going to be eager to finally cash in himself. If the Pacers can pay him, then he'll be happy to stay, but if they can't then it will be sayonara.

                                Young dudes don't leave money on the table when they're signing the first big contract of their careers. Everyone used to say how loyal Roy was to the Pacers, but he was ready to bolt for Portland in a heartbeat if the Pacers wouldn't have ponied up the money.
                                Yeah, between Lance and Danny if one of them is going to give the Pacers a discount it would be Danny. Even then it probably wouldn't be a huge discount. If Lance keeps up his current play we are going to have to hope that OJ and Solo can step up next season as it is unlikely we will be able to keep Lance or Danny.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X