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

Should Stephenson start at the 1?

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

  • #31
    Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

    Originally posted by joeyd View Post
    I'm also tempted to try to look up the record for triple doubles in a season.
    League wise is probably Oscar Robertson.
    EDIT: Research shows that it is indeed the Big O in his legendary 1961-62 campaign, and that record aint falling unless Lance rips off 42 Triple-Dubs this season.

    The team record is 4 in a year from Detlef. I think that one is falling.
    Last edited by Sandman21; 12-29-2013, 03:53 AM.
    "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


    • #32
      Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

      Originally posted by adamscb View Post
      Before I say anything, let me get something straight: I'm not disappointed at all in George Hill's play as the starting point guard.

      Okay, so I'm starting to believe that Stephenson should start at the one. He has that uncanny ability to see things before they happen and make the incredible pass. And what's even more impressive is his ability to do this almost every time he gets the ball. I remember early in the first quarter Stephenson had what like 4 or 5 assists in a row? This also means that GHill plays at the SG spot, his natural position. The only downside I see of this is Hill might be a defensive liability against the larger two guards. What is PD's thoughts?

      I think what your really asking is who should control the ball more, or be the facilitator ie "PG".

      the comment "keep as is" ... good in thought is not what Coach Vogel is doing. were not changing the dynamics but Coach is evolving the offense to allow Lance to facilitate. this begun about a month ago and I mentioned it in a game thread that slowly coach Vogel was allowing Lance more leeway and freedom offensively by allowing him to bring the ball up the court. which is essentially the "pg" role. its jumped from about 15% to now tonite 55%. when hill is not on the floor lance is even taking command of the offense over CJ Watson.

      Ive picked up that Coach Vogel likes to tinker with lineups and different dynamics against inferior teams specifically at home. I believe Coach is basically grooming Lance for a bigger role come postseason. Against elite teams Coach will play it closer to vest.

      To answer your question in a way that may be more relevant to what your searching for.

      Should Lance facilitate (bring ball up) in the playoffs as primary point. I believe Vogel is considering that right now and will evaluate as the season goes on. having lance run point allows GHill to play more of that shooting guard role which he excels at.

      If Lance continues to excel at initiating the offense and can play under control then yes he may take a bigger responsibility over both hill and cj which will beneifit both of those players as well and our offense overall.

      I think lance has a much easier time making the entry pass into the post. however, Hill and DWest are phenomenal at the pick and pop.




      long story short. Bird has built the team with a lot of flexibility and versatility. many may recall his comment that he wants players out there that can play multiple positions/roles interchangeably.

      This pacers team can beat you so many ways, and they really play great team basketball.

      I trust that Coach Vogel will continue to evaluate ways to continuously improve the team. I can see Lance as the primary initiator 50% of the time come the postseason just because Hill is so good at the shooting guard role.

      This team is just so darn good in how they cohesively play well together. the playoffs are all about matchups so it will be difficult to know what Coach will decide.

      I will say this, I think Lance is better with the ball in his hands. he doesn't force the issue as much when he touches more consistently from get go. Hill if asked would prob say he prefers a sg role. so in essense, yes this can work.. and defensively it will not be an issue either.



      the question I have is can Lance avoid careless turnovers and hot dog passes. if so then yes he along with hill running off screens can potentially take our offense to the next level. against the elite teams we cannot have a sloppy selfish showoff point creating careless turnovers and expect to win.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

        Pretty sure we had this discussion 2 months ago, why start Lance at the 1 ? Granger isn't even strong enough yet to be a full time starter, and Lance isn't quick enough to guard the quicker PGs. If you think Hill gets beat by quicker PGs, Lance will get demolished.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Until Granger fully recovers, this is a non-issue..
          And what would change if this happens ??

          No - Granger doesn NOT start.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
            League wise is probably Oscar Robertson.
            EDIT: Research shows that it is indeed the Big O in his legendary 1961-62 campaign, and that record aint falling unless Lance rips off 42 Triple-Dubs this season.

            The team record is 4 in a year from Detlef. I think that one is falling.
            I really don't see anyone breaking Big O's record. That guy was special. Detlef's record was quite close to be tied last night so it definitely is falling.
            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


            • #36
              Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

              Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
              Things are fine the way they are because Lance basically plays the point on the floor anyways.
              There have been several comments along these lines. But here's the deal: Still, about half the time we start the offense, Lance is standing in the corner.

              I don't care what you call it—point guard, 2 guard, an offense initiated by the wings—this offense needs to be started by Lance most of the time. I think he has demonstrated pretty clearly by now that we excel at the highest level when this is the case.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                Pretty sure we had this discussion 2 months ago, why start Lance at the 1 ? Granger isn't even strong enough yet to be a full time starter, and Lance isn't quick enough to guard the quicker PGs. If you think Hill gets beat by quicker PGs, Lance will get demolished.
                This is a moot point. Lance is guarding the two primarily and Hill the one, regardless of which position they play on offense. (Unless you are assuming that Hill is benched if Lance "starts at the 1.")
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                  If Hill isn't benched then it really is irrelevant to talk about, but shouldn't that be the obvious assumption? That it's not Lance or Danny anymore, it's Hill or Danny.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                    Defensively alone this will not work. Hill has played extremely well against Wall, Parker, Jennings, Mike Conley, and on and on the list goes. He keeps them out of the lane far better than anybody not named Paul George. Our offense is clicking and Lance is making that happen. But we will never see the day that Lance is guarding the other point guard. Can you imagine how zapped he would be?

                    He is thriving in the current role. A role that many here wanted him. Let us be happy with that.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      And what would change if this happens ??

                      No - Granger doesn NOT start.
                      I actually agree but I can guarantee you that many others will want and expect a 100% Danny Granger to start. It will be an issue. Heck, it's been an issue with Danny laid up so you know if he starts playing great we will hear the groans. I can only say I hope he shares minutes with Lance and Paul, but after coming off the bench.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                        I don't get the point of this if George Hill is still going to be starting.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I don't get the point of this if George Hill is still going to be starting.
                          I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."
                            It appears the team is handing him the reigns a bit more. Unlike Hill, he puts so much more pressure on the defense because they don't know what he'll do. He can see over the defense better than Hill. He might throw a dart. He might drive and dish. He might go all the way to the rack for an And-One. This uncertainty can get the defense off balance allowing ball movement to be that much more effective. I understand the risks involved with Lance, but the only way you get the biggest reward is by taking big risks. I think Hill and Granger should be the SG's on this team and Lance should initiate the offense.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                              Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                              League wise is probably Oscar Robertson.
                              EDIT: Research shows that it is indeed the Big O in his legendary 1961-62 campaign, and that record aint falling unless Lance rips off 42 Triple-Dubs this season.

                              The team record is 4 in a year from Detlef. I think that one is falling.
                              Yeah, the team record could fall next week. Big O's record is safe. Incredible that he averaged a triple double that season. Lance is impressive with 14 pts, 7 reb and 5 assists per game though!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."
                                You didn't understand my point, I don't understand why the distinction between starting PG and starting SG matters if nothing actually changes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X