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

Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

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

  • Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...arting_st.html


    Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future

    The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward this opinion: I want to see more of Lance Stephenson.

    He played well in summer league. We all know that by now. He's 6-5 with a 6-11 wingspan. He's a guy who has been groomed to play in the NBA since he was, oh, probably 14. So let's find out what he can do.

    Now.

    Not next year.

    Not three years down the road. (Seriously, how much more substantial information do we have about Brandon Rush that we didn't have two years ago with all this in-and-out-of-the-lineup silliness?)

    My thinking on Stephenson goes something along these lines:

    First, this season means next to nothing to the Pacers. Their whole Plan of Patience is to have salary cap space next summer. So if they win 20, 30 or 40 games this year, it changes little, except one potential item we'll get to in a bit.

    Second, Larry Bird keeps saying he wants a point guard. The Pacers have Stephenson, their second-round pick; A.J. Price, last year's second-round pick; and T.J. Ford on the roster, with Earl Watson out there as a free agent.

    The only real unknown in that group is Stephenson. Next year, neither Ford nor Price is going to bring much of anything as trade bait especially since Ford will be a free agent, so there is no reason to showcase them. Coach Jim O'Brien already has ticked off Ford to no end, and Price is coming along, but if it doesn't work out with a second-round pick, so be it. Which brings us back to Stephenson.

    Third, Stephenson has been groomed to be an NBA player since he hit high school. I was at the ABCD camp in New Jersey the summer of 2005 when this kid who hadn't entered high school went toe to toe with O.J. Mayo, who at the time had the rep as the best prep guard in the nation.

    Stephenson lost that battle to the guy a little more than three years older, but that was the biggest buzz from the entire camp. Lance Stephenson had the gall to go after O.J.? For real?

    I remember talking to some of the New York basketball mafia about Stephenson that week and the stories were amazing. So were the hangers-on, which, unfortunately, also often is part of the New York basketball scene.

    "That kid's in trouble," one NYC insider told me at the time.

    "Why," I asked.

    "Look at the shoes around him," I was told. "Lot of money in those shoes. Lot of money around that kid."

    So many questions surrounded Stephenson for several reasons that many colleges backed away from recruiting him, and he ended up at Cincinnati for a year. Everyone who knew the people in his ear knew he was going pro after one year, regardless of how that year went.

    So I don't put much stock in what he did or didn't do at Cincinnati. That was never the focus of the whole exercise. This - the NBA - was. So let's see what he's got for this level. I'm not saying he's better than Ford or Price at this point. A clear case could be made he's not. I'm saying, given the Pacers circumstances, it's almost a perfect storm of an opportunity to find out what he can do given some real time.

    Think about it. How much buzz would there be if, say in January, the rookie point guard is playing well? Think that wouldn't get a fan base excited?

    Fourth - and this is where it really gets fun - if he flops and flat out can't get it done, fine. Now we know. Or if he's starting to get it but the Pacers are losing, they can say something like, 'Hey, we want him to get experience and we're going to accept the losses. We're not going to yank him in and out the way we did with Rush and Roy Hibbert.'

    Either way, there is an enormous potential benefit to massive losses because if there was ever a year for a team needing a point guard to totally tank it, this is it.

    In the draft next year should be three freshman who look like starting NBA point guards for years to come in Josh Shelby, Kyrie Irving and Brandon Knight. All should be top-10 picks. Shelby already has said he plans to go pro after his one year in college.

    The 6-2 Shelby is going to Kansas, the 6-2 Irving to Duke, the 6-3 Knight to Kentucky. And that's in addition to current collegians such as Connecticut's Kemba Walker, who could play their way up the board.

    Fall into the 2011 lottery and your chances of getting one of those main three should be pretty good. That could be your point guard of the future.

    And it gives you multiple chances in the draft instead of one in the idiotic idea proposed by some that Kentucky freshman John Wall was the guy the Pacers should go after. Wall was going to be the No. 1 pick. The Pacers had no way of getting the No. 1 pick. What did the Pacers and Wall ever have to do with one another? Nothing.

    However, if you fall into the lottery next year with three future starting point guards on the board, your chances of getting one of them are pretty good.

    Then you've got your point guard of the future, plenty of salary cap space, potential additional trade bait in Stephenson and your back-up point guard of the future in Price.

    It's a win-win.

    If Stephenson is good, Pacers fans celebrate, they found their point guard of the future and have a ton of cap space.

    If Stephenson is bad, Pacers fans celebrate, they're in the lottery and have a real chance at Irving, Selby or Knight and a ton of cap space.

    Could make the summer of 2011 pretty good for the Pacers.

    www.twitter.com/JeffRabjohns

    (Mike Wells will be out of the office the week of July 18-24.)
    Last edited by vnzla81; 07-19-2010, 02:37 PM.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

  • #2
    Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

    *edit* See above; threads merged

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=55279
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

        I think that since there is an acceptable veteran point guard on the team at this time, this is possible at PG in a way it is not at other positions.

        That said, IF AJ comes back healthy, if a newer guy is going to start at PG I'd want it to be AJ's job to lose.

        Also, if the Pacers are able to trade certain players for a journeyman PG who can start and show AJ and Lance more of the ropes, I'd take that. You can't learn in a vacuum, and - at PG especially - having a veteran player at the position around to give you direct pointers in practice and during games is vital.

        Now let the : begin...
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

          If Jim O'brien's choice is Ford or Lance (assuming AJ is still recovering from injury, and no other point guard is signed) then I think Jim will give Lance heavy minutes.

          I know many of you think Jim hates rookies (I don't agree with that assertion) but he hates Ford more

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            If Jim O'brien's choice is Ford or Lance (assuming AJ is still recovering from injury, and no other point guard is signed) then I think Jim will give Lance heavy minutes.

            I know many of you think Jim hates rookies (I don't agree with that assertion) but he hates Ford more
            last year,

            Price, second round draft pick rookie, outplayed Ford and Watson in practice. And didn't earn time.

            Out played Ford in the one game before Ford's benching, and didn't earn time (after being promised time.)

            Was the best PG of the three to run JOB's offense (because he's more veristile and a better shooter than Watson, and just better than Ford)

            He clearly outplayed Ford when he got a month of playing time. And yet, when Ford made a couple of threes..Jimmy STILL pulled AJ for Ford.


            So you really think, that Jimmy is going to start Lance. A guy who can't shoot. A guy who isn't a PG right now. A second round draft pick, although not a point guard, in favor of Ford. I don't see it.

            I think if Price is healthy, he'd get the job. As I don't think Jimmy hates Price, and now that AJ is not a rookie, before the injury..if there was no trade, it was probably AJ's spot to lose.

            So personally, I think, if there isn't a trade. TJ will play with Lance getting limited minutes, until AJ's medically cleared to play. Then he'll go with AJ/TJ..until TJ drives him too nuts, and he'll switch to Lance.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

              i agree 1000% with the article.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                last year,

                Price, second round draft pick rookie, outplayed Ford and Watson in practice. And didn't earn time.

                Out played Ford in the one game before Ford's benching, and didn't earn time (after being promised time.)

                Was the best PG of the three to run JOB's offense (because he's more veristile and a better shooter than Watson, and just better than Ford)

                He clearly outplayed Ford when he got a month of playing time. And yet, when Ford made a couple of threes..Jimmy STILL pulled AJ for Ford.


                So you really think, that Jimmy is going to start Lance. A guy who can't shoot. A guy who isn't a PG right now. A second round draft pick, although not a point guard, in favor of Ford. I don't see it.

                I think if Price is healthy, he'd get the job. As I don't think Jimmy hates Price, and now that AJ is not a rookie, before the injury..if there was no trade, it was probably AJ's spot to lose.

                So personally, I think, if there isn't a trade. TJ will play with Lance getting limited minutes, until AJ's medically cleared to play. Then he'll go with AJ/TJ..until TJ drives him too nuts, and he'll switch to Lance.
                I hate to agree......but unless we sign a stop-gap PG....we're looking at AJ/TJ/Lance where Lance is on the short end of the stick.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                  If he starts and plays well, and the Pacers play well, he could be an interesting rookie of the year candidate. Has there ever been a 2nd round player as ROY?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    I hate to agree......but unless we sign a stop-gap PG....we're looking at AJ/TJ/Lance where Lance is on the short end of the stick.
                    The only issue with the stop gap...is if we'd end up with..

                    stop gap/Price

                    or stop gap/Ford

                    because if Price and Lance ended up on the bench with no minutes...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

                      Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
                      i agree 1000% with the article.
                      Yeah, well I agree 10000000%!

                      Seriously, throw the damn kid in the deep end. If he sinks we get a top 5 pick and if he swims he have our PG. Even JOB can get this one right... right?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                        I think they are certain going to try and play TJ this season and hope for the best. If anything they need to re-establish that TJ Ford has some trade value if they hope to shop him at the trade deadline.

                        I think you will see AJ on the short end of the stick with Lance being the primary back up. Because Lance will have had a training camp, while price is going to be rehabbing during that time. JOB puts alot of importance on training camp.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                          Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post

                          I watched the summer league games and what I like about Lance is not only the fact that he has some nice point guard skills but what stood out to me were his intangibles. I just got the feeling that he embraced the challenge of taking over leading the team at the point. It seemed he felt like the point was his best position to play and his job to lose.

                          While a lot of the rookies took a while to adjust he seemed to be ready to play as soon as the 1st game started. I also noticed he wasn’t intimidated or timid in his play at any point.

                          I believe his attitude and confidence built up from playing against older players and being in the spotlight while growing up will allow him to be able to handle a spot in the rotation from day one.

                          I for one hope he is the starter on day one because I see no downside. Best case scenario is he gets better and better and exceeds everyone’s expectation and becomes our point guard of the future. Worst case he struggles and we win 25-30 games and get in better position to draft one of the point guards coming out next year.

                          Where have I heard that before?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                            I am for giving it a try and see what happens, what do we have to lose? Besides games of course...
                            Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                              I'll say this, I want to do whatever it takes to improve in the future, be future oriented.

                              However, Lance can't be put in a situation where he's in over his head and AJ shouldn't play until he's physically ready. I think we'll all at least agree on the latter.

                              I'm all about baptism by fire, but to make Lance the starter, he needs to be at least close to ready to hold his own or he could revert to bad habits or your returns start to diminish on what you are learning.

                              So all of this talk needs to be based on whether Lance shows he's capable and if AJ shows he can carry any sort of load, minute wise.

                              I'm not worried about Lance being able to handle the spot light, he's been under the microscope most of is life. I'm worried that he learns to play the right way and gets to have realized success based on playing the right way.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X