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

Nets/Pacers postgame thread

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

  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    Moves the ball, moves himself in the right place, making basketball reads (IE, knowing where to move when Danny is planning driving to the basket, so that Danny can kick it out to him when Danny inevitably gets into trouble..) makes the right passes, defends significantly better, handles the ball, doesn't dribble himself into trouble, understands that there are more than himself and the person he's planning on passing to for the assist on the court, runs an offense..and yea, spaces the court. And he came into the league being able to do these things.

    Honestly, the only thing Lance does better than AJ is the flashy pass, which is usually a dumb pass anyway.

    So in essence, Price is a significant upgrade on the mental aspect of the game, as well as defense, shooting, ball handling, and solid passing (not flashy passing, Lance has got him beat there.)

    Price is very good in the pick and roll, but that is something I actually think Lance is pretty decent at. Granted, AJ is probably best to do it with Tyler, just because Tyler is pretty terrible at it (often leaves early, leaving the guard double teamed, and never really setting the pick.) Last year, Price just dealt with it and passed him the ball for the open jumper. DC used to actually call him back and make him do it again.
    Sook, I think you overrate Aj's abilities as much as I do Stephensons

    Stephenson has more natural talent and ability, see's the floor better, has better size and strength, can post up and drive better

    AJ is a better spot up shooter, higher "basketball IQ", Better 3PT shooter, and is more fundamentally sound than Lance

    I don't agree with the notion that Vogel is being urged to "give Lance minutes" by someone above him

    I personally think that Stephenson has the size and strength to guard certain PG's that would give AJ a difficult time and that is why Vogel is getting him spot minutes here and there
    Sittin on top of the world!

    Comment


    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

      I dont understand how someone could claim Lance has "played teriibly so far"

      How could anyone make that claim in the 15 minutes or so Lance has played this entire season

      I dont think you could make an accurate asssesment one way or the other off so little time played
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        Although I have not seen a whole lot of Lance (who really has?) I can say at a similar point in time with Price I was extremely impressed. With Lance I see someone who can be a decent player, but not really anything I would consider impressive. While Price has played bad at points, at other points he looked like he was clearly the best PG on the team. I think the only real reason one can say Collision is clearly better than Price is that Collision has been relatively more consistent than Price.

        Between Price and Lance it is no question who is better. The only reason Lance is getting minutes is for the same reasons why Collision, Tyler, and George were given starting jobs last year. Bird and co. have decided that Lance may have a future with the team, and dismissed Price as having a role outside of back-up for a season.
        I disagree with that statement

        AJ was on a non guranteed contract, the team picked up the option. They could simply have let him walk if they wanted to

        I also dont see AJ as being "no question better than Lance"

        The truth is , right now they are both NBA fringe players
        Sittin on top of the world!

        Comment


        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
          I dont understand how someone could claim Lance has "played teriibly so far"

          How could anyone make that claim in the 15 minutes or so Lance has played this entire season

          I dont think you could make an accurate asssesment one way or the other off so little time played
          I'd actually really like to see Stephenson get 5-10 minutes with the rest of the starters, and see how that shakes out. Doubt we'll see that lineup anytime soon though. That'd be a true apples to apples comparison with Price.

          My gut is that Lance might surprise some folks. There have been a couple of plays in particular where Lance just collapsed the defense that have me wondering.

          Comment


          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I never said you COULDN'T. I said that it's pretty hard to do with limited minutes, and that Larry has seen more of Lance than you have.
            Now I understand why you think everyone twists your words. Your hang on the meaning of every single solitary word like crazy. Okay, you didn't say I can't, but said that I shouldn't (or implied, whatever I don't feel like looking it up and God forbid I be wrong about whether it was said or implied- we would need a whole new server for that debate apparently). What the **** is the difference in the grand scheme of the actual debate? Good God you'll argue the finest details into the ground. I sure hope you're a personal injury lawyer or something. Then you can argue the finer points of the definition of a consenting trespasser with Wal-Mart attorneys all day to your hearts content.

            Comment


            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              Meanwhile his 3pt % has stayed consistently solid throughout his career. That, and watching him over the last 7 years tells me he is a spot up shooter and needs to remain such. He's just not effective at all when trying to create for himself. Pacers would greatly benefit if he would alter his style of play.
              I find myself agreeing. Last couple years I wanted him to drive more. This year and with this team I'd rather see the Pacers setting more screens for him to run off of and hit open jump shots. His ball handling and vision drives me nuts when he drives, but I like the defensive effort and he has a sweet stroke.
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                Yeah, relying on the actual meaning of words.

                HOW DARE I!

                I told you long ago that it was either my fault, that I didn't explain my position well enough, or it was your fault. You could have placed the blame on me, and my shoddy explaination, instead of digging your heels in even deeper.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Yeah, relying on the actual meaning of words.

                  HOW DARE I!

                  I told you long ago that it was either my fault, that I didn't explain my position well enough, or it was your fault. You could have placed the blame on me, and my shoddy explaination, instead of digging your heels in even deeper.
                  When you hold onto something to the point of inducing a sense of nausea, yeah, it's gone too far.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                    When it's quite clear to anyone with any amount of common sense that we're talking about the exact same thing? Yes, it's dumb to argue it.

                    You may think it's intelligent or whatever, but to be honest ... it's just annoying and overly anal retentive. This isn't a legal document.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      When you hold onto something to the point of inducing a sense of nausea, yeah, it's gone too far.
                      As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.
                        Actually it doesn't. It just takes the other person 2 pages to figure that you're so anal about every tiny detail that it's not worth arguing.

                        Won't happen again, trust me.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread



                          Can we just move on with the actual thread topic instead of the "Tyler/Lance Pass and Catch" Thread.
                          I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            I think this particular disagreement is actually whether Lance threw a bad pass or not. Obviously you don't think he did, and others do.

                            And quite frankly, I don't put much stock into what Larry says about Lance.

                            edit: and people have said here, people that communicate with the players, that the players pretty much completely disagree with Larry.
                            Please back that statement up with factual evidence as I dont remeber another Pacer saying something to that effect

                            I dont also think Bird would have any motivation to call Lance the most talented player on the team, other than he truly believes that

                            Now he can be wrong in his assessment , but Bird doesnt strike me as a man who says things he thinks people want to hear
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                              Give it a week or two and AJ will probably get the minutes. Then a week or two later, Lance will get the minutes. That's how it goes for deeply buried bench players. Who really cares which one plays or sits, they really don't make that much of a difference anyway. And the difference between them certainly shouldn't cause such disdain.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                So they can catch Darren Collison's passes but not Lance's? Does Lance grease up the ball beforehand or what?
                                Collison's typical assist is a pass out to the perimeter and the guy hits the shot.

                                Lance is making nifty no look passes for an easy layup. But the phenomenon is so foreign to our players that they are currently fumbling most of them.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X