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

Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

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

  • #76
    Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    If your argument is that "after all, he doesn't have a guaranteed contract", I guess that helps...but where is the benefit of drafting him? You don't draft a guy and expect him to fall flat on his face. If he succeeds, who signs him to his multi-million dollar contract? Personally, I don't think the Pacers can take a risk on him. The only alternative is to trade the asset and it would be a fire sale.
    I don't understand...are you saying that a problem with Stephenson is that he will want a multi-million dollar contract if he succeeds? Is there an NBA player who doesn't? I think it will be incredibly fortunate if our 2nd round pick does well enough to command a high salary.

    How much of a "risk" is any second round pick, really?

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      And with Brandon Rush as your starting SG, at least as of right now, I think those qualities are magnified a little. You can't have 2 passive guards. Guys have got to be more assertive. I think the key here is Lance learning a good shot from a bad one, and a good pass from a bad one. Sure he was let go off Team USA, but I don't really think that has anything to do with the future. That was him then, as an extremely young player with a lot to learn. Why not give him a chance? What do we have to lose? If it doesn't work out, back to SG he goes. But the potential of him at PG with his size and handles is worth a look.



      I think people should stop writing people off for mistakes they have made as kids. He is a human being, and human beings make mistakes. It's easy for us to sit here and criticize people. But none of us know what it's like to have people doing news stories about you as an 8th grader and constantly showering you with praise every step of your development. It has an affect on your mindset. I think we were all a lot different as 17-19 year olds than we were at 24-25 year olds. So lets hold off the criticism until the kid at least gets a fair shake at growing up. These guys live in a different world than we do, and experience a side of life most of us have no clue about. A lot of people have overcame a lot more than ego problems, so I don't see any reason to feel Lance can't overcome what ever issues he may have.

      Sure, we are all a little concerned with some things in his past. But who knows? For a second round pick he has great potential. I think we should all be excited about that.
      I don't blame him. I just don't think he's worth the risk because I don't see a sufficient reward. IMO, the best case situation means that he plays well and we trade him for some nominal value. Worst case, he plays well, we re-sign him and he blows up like Artest or Marbury. Middle ground is...we cut him loose. None of those options are appealing IMO.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        I don't blame him. I just don't think he's worth the risk because I don't see a sufficient reward. IMO, the best case situation means that he plays well and we trade him for some nominal value. Worst case, he plays well, we re-sign him and he blows up like Artest or Marbury. Middle ground is...we cut him loose. None of those options are appealing IMO.
        I disagree, I think the best case is he learns from past mistakes and develops into a good person and fulfills his potential and we get a steal. Why do you label him someone who can't handle success as a grown man because he let his success get to his head as a kid? I just disagree that it's a risk because of what happened on a 18 and under USA team. I think you are letting the the Pacers past determine their future, which is always a mistake.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

          Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
          I don't understand...are you saying that a problem with Stephenson is that he will want a multi-million dollar contract if he succeeds? Is there an NBA player who doesn't? I think it will be incredibly fortunate if our 2nd round pick does well enough to command a high salary.

          How much of a "risk" is any second round pick, really?
          My concern is not that he will want big money. My concern is that drafting him is taking a needless risk that has limited potential reward. I think the Pacers are just impressed with what they believe is a steal in the second round. I hope they are right, but I don't think the story will end a happy one.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            I disagree, I think the best case is he learns from past mistakes and develops into a good person and fulfills his potential and we get a steal. Why do you label him someone who can't handle success as a grown man because he let his success get to his head as a kid? I just disagree that it's a risk because of what happened on a 18 and under USA team. I think you are letting the the Pacers past determine their future, which is always a mistake.
            I would give your first sentence about a 2% chance of happening. ...and I'm not labeling him as someone who cannot handle success as a grown man, because I don't think his type grows up. That's the problem. See Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury and Jamaal Tinsley for examples. I do wish him luck...and really, really want to believe you are right...but I don't believe it.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              I would give your first sentence about a 2% chance of happening. ...and I'm not labeling him as someone who cannot handle success as a grown man, because I don't think his type grows up. That's the problem. See Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury and Jamaal Tinsley for examples. I do wish him luck...and really, really want to believe you are right...but I don't believe it.
              The dude hasn't played a single minute of NBA ball yet. Can we at least give him summer league before writing him off?
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                What is summer league going to prove about (a) his ability to play in the NBA, (b) his ability to play PG in the NBA, (c) his ability to grow up (which was BnG's point), or (d) pretty much anything.

                Summer league is almost as overrated as individual pre-draft workouts.

                Maybe I should take the summer off and just let the loonies and crackpots take over.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                  We really dont know at this point enuf to say hes gna be the pg of the future . He does have a great talent and this rookie yr will say a lot about him, well see if he can get his togther and also make the right plays. If he gets mins which he will eventually will over the course of whole season we'll see how he plays at the point. He could definately be a good contributer andland into into a bigger role in the future as a combo but maybe even point. But its also pretty possible that his head isnt together and he sits on the bench untill hes traded or let go. But for now ill give him the benefit if the doubt, he does have a lot of potential so lets see what he does with it

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    The dude hasn't played a single minute of NBA ball yet. Can we at least give him summer league before writing him off?
                    You are welcome to give him summer league or whatever you like. I also respect your opinion on this. I just have a different one...one that is not interested in a repeat....or even a sniff of the last fiasco of a decade. I don't even like the reminder....and I don't think you need his type to win. Maybe I have a little more patience.

                    If he surprises everyone by a) playing unselfishly, b) playing smart with the ball (including sharing the ball) and c) keeping out of trouble off the court for a couple solid years...all things he is known not to do...I will join everyone on the Lance Stephenson band wagon if there's another seat. For now, I wish you all well on the trip.

                    BTW, what is the plan if he plays really well (at PG) during his first year? Isn't this what everyone wants? What is the next step? Do you sign that 4 year 8M/yr contract with him and hope he doesn't pull a Tinsley or blow up in your face the next year? I'm pretty risk tolerant and I don't care for that scenario...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                      I just wish people would actually watch him play before speaking on him. He averaged 11 shots per game in around 30 minutes a game. That is a shot about every 3 minutes. Geez, what a ball hog. He has trouble with shot selection. That is a completely different issue. His assist numbers are actually great for a freshman 2 guard, and I challenge someone to find a freshman SG with better assist numbers. And as far as I know Lance has never been in any real trouble. He was charged with sexual assault a few years back and the charges were dismissed. Sure you can just label it another athlete getting an unfair break, but the truth is none of us know the specifics of the incident and it could just as easily be a case of someone talking out of their rear end.

                      BTW if he plays really well at PG I would have no problem signing him to a 4 year deal that pays him 2 million per season. And I would feel like a got a steal.
                      Last edited by Taterhead; 07-03-2010, 02:21 PM.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        BTW, what is the plan if he plays really well (at PG) during his first year? Isn't this what everyone wants? What is the next step? Do you sign that 4 year 8M/yr contract with him and hope he doesn't pull a Tinsley or blow up in your face the next year? I'm pretty risk tolerant and I don't care for that scenario...
                        You take him up on his freakin' team option or unguarantee'd second year, is what you do.
                        "man, PG has been really good."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                          I thought I read that the sexual abuse thing was him grabbing a girl's butt. Both he and the girl were teenagers. Not a huge deal from what I know so far, though certainly inappropriate. Just my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                            Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                            You take him up on his freakin' team option or unguarantee'd second year, is what you do.
                            Then what? Take him up in terms of cutting him...or keeping him? If you keep him, are you ready to fork out 6-8M/yr after two years of good ball and behaviour? How is this different than Tinsley II?...at least in year 3 when you have to sign that contract?
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-03-2010, 04:17 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Then what? Take him up in terms of cutting him...or keeping him? If you keep him, are you ready to fork out 6-8M/yr after two years of good ball and behaviour? How is this different than Tinsley II?...at least in year 3 when you have to sign that contract?
                              If he's earned the contract....hell yes you do.

                              A GM operating on fear of "maybe" isn't going to be in charge of a team very long. Would you let a player that has earned such a contract -at a position of need- just walk? If you are concerned about his behavior you try to trade him.
                              "man, PG has been really good."

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Lance Stephenson being our Point Guard of the future?

                                We're all just going to have to wait and see. Hopefully he plays this week and we can at least have idea if it's even possible. I see both sides of the debate, and I am glad we are at least having the conversation. I don't have any compelling evidence for either side. You either like the idea or you don't. I know if he does succeed we will all be here chanting his name (ok maybe not all of us), if he fails his detractors will say see I told you so. I like the idea of him being able to play the position, but I also know his background regardless of how much the Pacers checked him out, raises some red flags. I like to think we are due for some good fortune and he will show maturity and the willingness to behave and take this opportunity and make something of it. In the end, time will tell, the problem is we have all been waiting such a long, long time.
                                Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X