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

  • #16
    Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
    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?
    Not that I can see from the 2-round drafts we have now:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Roo...the_Year_Award

    Even in looking at a year like 1957, there were 14 rounds for only 83 players. Your optimism is nice, but I can't see Lance on the Pacers doing any better than Wall on the Wizards. Only time will tell lol
    Check out my autographed 1972-73 Topps basketball project

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

      Originally posted by Speed View Post
      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.
      I agree, right now, it's very wait and see.

      TJ is the only actual PG on the roster, that can actually play.

      Lance has to convert, and throwing him in there with a backup like TJ (who is also going to fail misreably) might not be that great of an idea. I was in favor of throwing the other younger guys into the wolves. Because they are NBA ready, mature, high bball IQ players. Lance is still quite young, just throwing him in there, with the only person to learn from being TJ..uh..sounds like a bad idea. (particularly since, it would also be a good idea to play him on the wing for a few minutes too..and I've already said..plzgodno TJ/Lance together.)

      With Price. If he was healthy, he would be the best PG on the roster, at the moment. However, he's not. And although the broken bone shouldn't effect his athleticism. We don't know how long it'll take to heal (we're crossing our fingers for October) and perhaps, we don't know how long it'll take AJ to mentally heal from it. This is the second time he has driven to the basket, and his knee gave in. This isn't the typical broken bone. He didn't fall on it, no one hit it..it just broke when he was running. That's weird (although more than likely related to the ACL reconstruction), and I would think probably mentally harder to get over than actually breaking it on something. So we really have to see how he plays, whether he can handle a lot of minutes or not.

      So my guess is still simply, Ford will get the starting spot, Price (when healthy) will back him up. Stephenson will get a few minutes at SG, maybe. Until about decemebr/January, when JOB has had it with Ford, and Price will get way too many minutes and Lance will get the backup minutes. Ford will be benched and happy to leave town.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

        I am cautiously on board with Mr. Rabjohns.

        If we have Lance and TJ out there for the start of the season, I'd rather get TJ out there first. Lance will get his time, because like Buck said, O'Brien has it out for Ford.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          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...
          This is 100% where I am on this. I'm cool with giving Lance major minutes, but what I don't want is to not have someone around who he can learn from. Before you know it he could have developed certain in-game habbits that really could be tough to "unlearn" again.

          A veteran PG for the minimum is what we should be able to get this summer. Maybe an Antonio Daniels, Kevin Ollie. That sort of players.
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

            I'm not down. He shouldn't be playing PG full time, at all. He can play backup minutes at the point, fine. Yet, I still don't want him taking George's minutes at SG/SF either.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

              This is a very good article. If we start the season out with our current lineup and AJ is still not ready to go, then Lance should be the man.
              We really have nothing to lose. We already suck, if we suck next year, then Bird can just say we are still within the three plan. Then we get to draft a top rated PG next year.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Jeff Rabjohns on Lance Stephenson and the PG situation

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                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 should have read "...since there is NOT an acceptable veteran..." - I think it was read properly by the folks who quoted it even though I left out the wurd.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                  Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                  O'Brien has it out for Ford.
                  Let's not make O'Brien out to be the bad guy in the Ford situation, it's a two way street.

                  Here's my take on the PG situation: I don't ever want to see T.J. Ford play again in a Pacers uniform. I don't care who else is on the roster. I don't care who's healthy. I'd rather buy him out and re-sign Diener for the vet. minimum. T.J. Ford is not a terrible basketball player, but in the current system (and in the locker room) he's much more of a negative than a positive.

                  Honestly, if our PG's are Ford, Price, and Stephenson at the beginning of the year, we should just let the other 12 players vote on the starter. I'd bet $1,000 that it wouldn't be Ford.
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                    The best piece on the Pacers that I have ever seen Rabjohns write.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                      "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."

                      I'm hearing a lot of applause from people, considering the writer is suggesting that starting him is a possible way to tank the season, getting a better draft pick, and that is apparently a very good thing.

                      Every year the tanking discussion comes up, and people who suggest tanking are blasted on this forum.

                      I guess I don't get it.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                        I understand where Mike Wells is coming from, but you just add conflict by starting a rookie who's never played PG at the college or NBA level before over a veteran no matter how much you may not like him. You start Ford and let Stephenson back him up until Price comes back. And if you're able to work a trade somewhere along the line AND Stephenson has performed well to that point and Price is still out, you have to decide whether to allow him to continue being the BU/PG or start him until the new PG is ready to take charge.

                        But starting Stephenson just because he fits into current plans for the future...

                        Naw...he still needs to grow and develop his NBA game and learn the ropes. Give him minutes at BU/PG, but you don't start him...not now.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                          Mike Wells didn't write this, Jeff Rabjohn did.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                            As LB already noticed, Lance plays a rough game (of the street) while on the court and will adjust to the NBA game more quickly than a passive player would (i.e. Brandon Rush). He's also a tenacious player on defense and brings leadership to the court. He also shoots a very smooth mid-range shot from the outside. I really don't see any weaknesses in his game other than game experience at PG. He also has on-court chemistry with McBob, George, and Rolle already. I don't see him taking much time getting the same chemistry with Hibbert, Murph, Rush, or whoever takes the court with him. He just has that innate ability and court savviness that belies his nickname: Born Ready....hence my icon of Lance Stephenson dunking over Marcus Cousins while playing around in practice.
                            Last edited by TooBigNdaPaint; 07-19-2010, 05:59 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                              I wish we had another coach that we knew he was going to give a chance to Lance to play this year but as we know JOB is not going to play the rookies that much because "the veterans give us a better chance to win" so yeah we are all dreaming if we think that Lance is going to be the starter point guard this year.
                              Last edited by vnzla81; 07-19-2010, 09:28 PM.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why starting Stephenson at PG could be a smart move for the Pacers' future(indystar)

                                I have a feeling we're done with roster changes.

                                Bird probably feels that Lance is the PG that he's been waiting for.

                                Hopefully that's the truth.

                                When I think of Lance as a PG, I think of Tyreke Evans instantly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X