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

What happened to Lance?

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

  • Re: What happened to Lance?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    You're naive.



    This isn't a legal setting. Those rules do not apply.

    And what's sad, is that Lance has twice (well, three if you count Candy, I guess) flirted with legal trouble, too. Pathetically, his issues go beyond those things.



    This really does feel like the Ron Artest years all over again. I've seen these kinds of statements before, but it's been years ago.

    You can't defend this by saying what would or wouldn't fly in court, because we are not in court, the players are not in court (for now?), and you can't drag the rules of law over to where they don't apply (so to speak).

    The Pacers don't have to wait for the law to tell them there's something wrong with Lance before they decide to trade or cut him.

    The fans don't have to wait for the law to tell them they shouldn't care for him or otherwise want him away from the team.

    So bringing the law into it isn't really relevant.
    I call not condemning Lance until the facts are in fairness. BTW they haven't cut him so perhaps he did not do something terrible. We are not going to agree so have a good day.

    Comment


    • Re: What happened to Lance?

      Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
      Yes, finally some gets it.. It was just a reaction to the milk drinkers vs. knucklehead argument trying to stuff all players into one of the two categories.
      Even though you were joking, it got me to wondering how I would divide them into one of those two groups, if those were my only choices.

      I'll begin by establishing my definitions.

      Milk drinker: Someone who doesn't get in trouble with the law, someone who isn't a liability to disrupt the team by his on court or off court behavior.

      Knucklehead: Essentially the opposite of a milk drinker. Someone who either gets in trouble with the law, and/or someone who is a liability to disrupt the team by his on court or off court behavior.

      With that established, let's give this a try:

      Milk-drinkers:

      Darren Collison
      AJ Price
      TJ Ford
      Paul George
      Mike Dunleavy
      Tyler Hansbrough
      Josh McRoberts
      James Posey**
      Roy Hibbert
      Jeff Foster

      Knuckleheads:

      Lance Stephenson
      Brandon Rush
      Dahntay Jones**
      Danny Granger**
      Solomon Jones

      ** Only here because I forced myself to choose between one or the other. Otherwise, I would have put his person in the 'Undecided' category.

      Comment


      • Re: What happened to Lance?

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Basically that Lance's statements/actions would not be tolerated by the 90's team (i.e. Reggie, Dale and Antonio)...kind of implying that part of the problem was a lack of leadership on the current Pacer team.

        I guess we need Clark to come in and babysit...or Jim O'Brien to bring his iron fist back.

        Seriously, there are no grown men on the Pacer team. They either lack backbone or they're infants.
        I know, and it's very... displeasurable.

        I was ticked off at O'Brien for his negativity, but frankly, it's starting to look like the majority of it was warranted with this sorry bunch. Jim was the only mature man in that lockerroom.

        I'm still glad he's gone, by the way. But it's obvious he was serving a purpose that not just anyone could fulfill.

        Comment


        • Re: What happened to Lance?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Even though you were joking, it got me to wondering how I would divide them into one of those two groups, if those were my only choices.

          I'll begin by establishing my definitions.

          Milk drinker: Someone who doesn't get in trouble with the law, someone who isn't a liability to disrupt the team by his on court or off court behavior.

          Knucklehead: Essentially the opposite of a milk drinker. Someone who either gets in trouble with the law, and/or someone who is a liability to disrupt the team by his on court or off court behavior.

          With that established, let's give this a try:

          Milk-drinkers:

          Darren Collison
          AJ Price
          TJ Ford
          Paul George
          Mike Dunleavy
          Tyler Hansbrough
          Josh McRoberts
          James Posey**
          Roy Hibbert
          Jeff Foster

          Knuckleheads:

          Lance Stephenson
          Brandon Rush
          Dahntay Jones**
          Danny Granger**
          Solomon Jones

          ** Only here because I forced myself to choose between one or the other. Otherwise, I would have put his person in the 'Undecided' category.
          AJ Price, he with a criminal background, is a milk drinker, yet Danny Granger, a model citizen and only whispers of perhaps an on court issue, is a knucklehead?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            When Austin Coshere says Lance's comments wouldn't have been tolerated. Who says they were here?
            If they truly handled it the way they ought to have, Austin would have no reason to come out and say such a thing.

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            I hope DG and the players also told Croshere to shut his lilly white mouth and stop airing the teams dirty laundry on the radio, because Croshere aint done **** in the NBA except collect a fat contract for playing one good stretch of games.

            I question how strongly you really believe what you're trying to argue here, given how upset you're getting with the messenger.

            Shooting the messenger is usually a bad sign for your take on something.

            Comment


            • Re: What happened to Lance?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              So is Price also a bad person for getting arrested when he was 19? could he be another problem in locker room because he is a former "thug" or is still one?


              http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2132439
              There's a large canyon in between what kind of legal trouble AJ had and what kind of legal trouble Lance had.

              Comment


              • Re: What happened to Lance?

                Originally posted by 31andonly View Post
                Lots of trouble and negativity for a guy who was picked somewhere at the bottom of the second round in the draft.
                Bottom of the second round?

                I know it's a minor point, but we ought to keep our facts straight when we can.

                The 2nd round is picks 31 through 60. Lance was 40.

                Comment


                • Re: What happened to Lance?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  With that established, let's give this a try:

                  Milk-drinkers:

                  Darren Collison
                  Paul George
                  Mike Dunleavy
                  Tyler Hansbrough
                  Josh McRoberts
                  Roy Hibbert
                  Danny Granger**
                  Jeff Foster

                  Knuckleheads:

                  James Posey**
                  TJ Ford
                  AJ Price
                  Lance Stephenson
                  Brandon Rush
                  Dahntay Jones**
                  Solomon Jones

                  ** Only here because I forced myself to choose between one or the other. Otherwise, I would have put his person in the 'Undecided' category.
                  fixed
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: What happened to Lance?

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    No, he doesn't beat up old people. I think he not only disrespects, he assaults women...which isn't any better in my book.

                    ...and get over the use of the word THUG. Look up the definition for the word. It's unrelated to race and in my nearly 46 years I had never seen people associate with race until I frequented this message board. Now, if I used the phrase "Gang Member", I would agree with you...but I didn't use that phrase because he has no gang. He's a single individual loser. ...and we can't use the word GOON...which is a synonym for thug on www.thesaurus.com. ...because it's used to describe the second unit...and probably originally to describe the tougher nature of the second unit.

                    As for the term....Goon, hoodlum, thug, bully, trouble-maker, delinquent, hood, punk...all of those things tend to mean the same thing to me. None of which is related to race.

                    In any event, this issue has nothing to do with race and everything to do with Lance Stephenson's lack of character.
                    Again, Im not accusing you of thinking this way. I am only voicing my opinion on a word I don't care for. Now YOU may say you dont inject race and I believe you. How ever, I have yet to ever hear of a white athlete refereed to as a "thug". My personal opinion it is used in a derogatory way to covertly attack minorities. I just dont like it, or the use of it

                    I will leave it at that but also say I have some of the same concerns you have about Lance
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • Re: What happened to Lance?

                      Originally posted by mb221 View Post
                      If anyone caught the HBO documentary on the Tarkanian era at UNLV that was on last night there was some interesting comments from one of the commentators on there. The UNLV team with Larry Johnson, Stacey Augmon, Greg Anderon, etc. was one of the first athletic teams to be labeled thugs. None of them had any checkered histories, and it was obvious that the use of the word thug was clearly a racial issue. This has also clearly continued on into this day of age. If you think what Lance has done in the past warrants the use of the thug label on him, that's fine. But there is absolutely no doubt that the word thug has racist overtones.
                      Yeah, some have definitely used it in a racist way.

                      With that said, if the word in and of itself is not racist, I tend to stick with that and ignore the racists word hijackers, unless the user of the word gives me reason to suspect foul play.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What happened to Lance?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        There's a large canyon in between what kind of legal trouble AJ had and what kind of legal trouble Lance had.
                        He was arrested and if I am not mistaken he was charged, way different than Lance.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: What happened to Lance?

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          I call not condemning Lance until the facts are in fairness. BTW they haven't cut him so perhaps he did not do something terrible. We are not going to agree so have a good day.
                          I actually do agree that he didn't do anything 'terrible'. Of course, I think he did something wrong, but nothing severe enough to warrant cutting him on the spot.

                          I'm just using his past and the current speculation/reports to project ahead, and I'm not anticipating a happy outcome.

                          That's why I want him gone ASAP.

                          I've seen these kinds of things before, and it left me with a sharp impression that the sooner you admit there's a problem, and move to deal with the problem, the better.

                          But it's the NBA, where falling in love with talent happens.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What happened to Lance?

                            yeah Lance hasn't been perfect, but I am more worried of Lance becoming a pre-madonna, then a criminal.

                            Lance hasnt really had any structure in his life, I think its way too early to write him off, it that was the case I guess there would be no need for rehabilitation in prisons.

                            So maybe he gets it together maybe he doesnt. he is signed for one more year so lets give him that and re-evaluate

                            Im just so pissd that I thought we had turned the corner, evidently we just extended it several blocks
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


                            • Re: What happened to Lance?

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              AJ Price, he with a criminal background, is a milk drinker, yet Danny Granger, a model citizen and only whispers of perhaps an on court issue, is a knucklehead?
                              Notice that Danny is someone I would prefer to leave in the 'Undecided' category if I could.

                              With that said, it's a huge stretch, but I opted to put him in that category anyway because of his current (from what is apparent) attitude/behavior on the floor, and from something I was privately told recently.

                              The latter of which, I won't say more on other than to say no one should take that too seriously. It's minor.

                              This was just an exercise in 'one or the other' categorizing. It's intentionally sloppy, and I am by no means saying everyone on either list is on equal footing with one another.

                              Regarding AJ Price: From all I've seen/read/heard about this guy:

                              1) He was an accessory to Marcus Williams, who was the main deviant in said incident.

                              2) This is the only blemish before or since.

                              3) It appears that this was extremely out of character for him, both in terms of his personality and his family background. I am very confident that he will never do anything like that again.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What happened to Lance?

                                It really bums me out that people assume accusations are guilt. Innocent until proven guilty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X