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

Let's discuss Lance

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

  • Re: Let's discuss Lance

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    The real question is does anyone think there's another player on the roster that's more talented than Lance? Not saying "better" but more talented? That's what Bird said, and you'd think people thought Larry went retro and cleaned out a case of Budweiser before making the comment.

    It's pretty evident that Lance can not only create his own shot, but create shots for others. Either through a two-man game, or just Lance being able to see the play/pass develop and being able to deliever the ball.

    Other than his good shooting numbers, there really isn't anything that is luck with him. The things he does well are the things that he can replicate.
    from what i have seen, lance is the best slasher and scorer on the team by a considerable margin. i think he can replace that element barbosa gave us from time to time. and throw in the ability to help create for others too. he has been the most pleasant surprise of this season for me no doubt.

    Comment


    • Re: Let's discuss Lance

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      The real question is does anyone think there's another player on the roster that's more talented than Lance? Not saying "better" but more talented? That's what Bird said, and you'd think people thought Larry went retro and cleaned out a case of Budweiser before making the comment.

      It's pretty evident that Lance can not only create his own shot, but create shots for others. Either through a two-man game, or just Lance being able to see the play/pass develop and being able to deliever the ball.

      Other than his good shooting numbers, there really isn't anything that is luck with him. The things he does well are the things that he can replicate.
      Yes and his name is Josh Mcroberts
      Last edited by vnzla81; 11-12-2012, 04:03 PM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Let's discuss Lance

        It sure does feel nice getting a tiny bit of vindication for those of us who have been Lance's biggest prognosticators of his talent, potential and abilities as a basketball player.
        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

        Comment


        • Re: Let's discuss Lance

          I'm glad Lance is doing something at last.


          But I still don't like him.

          Comment


          • Re: Let's discuss Lance

            I pity the fool...

            Comment


            • Re: Let's discuss Lance

              Yeak kemo,.

              I remeber a lot of it all, talk of things like "he cant play at all, and should be cut immediately etc etc

              thats cool, we all make mistakes
              Sittin on top of the world!

              Comment


              • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                I never doubted his ability to pass and score the ball. But I did doubt his shooting and defense...so on that point I will admit I am surprised he has improved this much. I did not expect him to be shooting this well and I'm shocked how well he is defending. I am now convinced he is at least a good backup combo guard.

                At the same time, who have we played? Let's see how he attempts to guard DWade or LeBron. If he can handle that as well as Granger, for example, he will silence all of his critics.

                Comment


                • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                  Lance has 2 fundamental things going for him right now.

                  1) His work on shooting has him as the primary/only solid 3pt threat on a team that desperately needs more than one.

                  2) His playground style and desire to make things up on the fly are conducive to solving the other major issue the Pacers have which is no flow between players, and from that virtually no passing.


                  Also I think Lance/Tyler show the best relationship on the team. Lance knows were Tyler is going to be and gets him the ball in a way we wish Hill or Paul were getting the ball to West or Roy.


                  HOWEVER - I also thought Price was a great passer and for all the chest pounding in this thread I think only Sookie, myself and maybe 3 other posters thought Price was worth anything, and he just showed up and dropped double digit assists on the Pacers and nearly led his weak team to a road victory. So maybe let's cool the jets on the "we all showed you" angle. It's pretty 6 games vs meh teams and some god awful basketball early to make any calls.


                  Paul shows more overall skill by far and clearly Green is a superior athlete. So for all this "he's the most talented player" talk, it's just nuts.


                  In fact I think Lance is in a dangerous position right now. He's having some success, but due to his style and attitude he runs the risk of letting it go to his head and reverting into "bad Tinsley". He still gets way too cute with the ball when he starts feeling it, throws pointless moves into plays that go nowhere (ie, shake and bake, crossover, head fake, head fake, pull up 20 foot jumper for iron), and teeters on getting distracted with yapping about plays.



                  Those 2 areas of strength I mentioned are VERY VALUABLE to this team, and the shooting especially is a credit to his work. But all the people saying they saw that in him are full of it because he wasn't a great outside shooter previously and had no history of it. Everyone has always loved his pointless hot sauce flair moves. That and his size.

                  But the hot sauce at least isn't what's coming to fruition and making him better right now. It's the boring old shooting work and his willingness to take a shot.

                  Lance is NOT DRAWING FOULS for all his perceived aggressiveness and ability to create his own shot (5 FTAs total, 1.1 per 36 ranks 10th on the team).

                  His Assists per 36 is 4th and at 2.9 he's way behind the "non PG" Hill (6.4) and the pretty awful so far DJ (5.2). Paul George also leads him (3.2).

                  So right now you have a good shooting backup guard that gets steals at the same rate as Hill, Paul or even DJ and turns it over at the same rate as Roy Hibbert has been.

                  What Lance is right now is a good backup guard, he's killing that role I'd say. But he's not filling, let alone killing the "best guy on the team" role.

                  This is just a case of expectations and looking better compared to the options. And at a rate of about 1 3PM per game, it's not like his scoring is changing the world. It's very helpful, very needed, but he'll have to up the contributions quite a bit before he's making good on the standard imagery put out by some of the fanboys.



                  Frankly it should just be enough to say that a kid that used to flake out has finally put in enough serious work to make himself a useful weapon. To me that's enough compliment on it's own given his history, one that mirrors Gerald Green. That's where I'm hanging my "hope hat" right now. That and BAMF's post game.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-12-2012, 10:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    To take your point even further, the things he's not quite good at, (off the ball defense, silly turnovers, shot selection) are things that will easily improve with more time/experience on the court. I'd always rather have a young player who's overly aggressive and needs to learn when to pick and choose his spots, as opposed to having a guy who's got all the talent in the world but needs to be "pushed".

                    The things Lance is doing, getting to the cup, shooting a decent % when left open from 3, are things that he can continue to do. If his J is falling he's very difficult to handle because he's strong, and can go left or right with his dribble.
                    re his off ball defense, I've saw noticeable improvements in the last few games. He's still not very good at maneuvering around screens, and opposing offenses are definitely picking on him by running him through single and often times double screens, but he's no longer dieing on them like he used to. He still not a good defender by any means, but he's steadily improving. I'd still like to see Frank take more advantage of our versatility defensively by hiding Lance on the least dangerous player 1-3 and letting Hill and Paul guard the other 2 more dangerous guys. There's really no reason for Lance to ever have to guard the best wing scorer when he's semi capable of guarding 3 positions depending on who the opponent is.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                      Passing was never the issue with A.J., it was his shooting/shot selection and the fact that some us thought he was playing ahead of a guy with a much higher ceiling.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                        Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                        The other thing that has surprised me about Lance is his conditioning. He looks ready to go all the time. I haven't really seen him laboring out there.
                        But did he previously?

                        I never doubted his size/strength or his conditioning. My concern was lots of flash to moves that didn't really gain any advantage in the end and often ate more clock than helped the play. This is why people liked him more at the SG, except he wasn't really looking like a natural shooting threat.

                        I trust him to take shots now, obviously. But there's the risk that this is just a nice 8-17 streak over 7 games that won't hold up. It feels reliable but if this was player Q from Utah or GSW it wouldn't make me want to shove guys off the roster to get him, statistically speaking. In fact most of PD couldn't name any other 8 3PM so far guards for other teams. Martell Webster for Lance trade? How about trading for Jae Crowder? Lance for Bayless? Pondexter?

                        These are guys making the same amount of 3s at the same rate, and most are scoring more overall and getting more assists.

                        Lance was a 40th pick. In that regard he's a success because he's played the 25th most minutes in his class and might yet climb past a few more guys. He's 3rd in minutes past the 28th pick behind Fields and "token minutes" Harangody. Great bang for buck pick.



                        ** Of course someone had to make a McRoberts joke, yet Josh is 6th in minutes at Orlando (ie, he's playing) and his P36 assists/TOs is 3.3 vs 1.3 (about 2.5 A/T ratio). Lance is dishing it at 2.9 vs 2.3 (about 1.3 A/T ratio). And per usual Josh is at 8.8 reb36 vs Tyler's 8.7 and 50% shooting vs 37%. So basically same old, same old. The Josh fans are just as right about him as the Lance fans.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                          ** Of course someone had to make a McRoberts joke, yet Josh is 6th in minutes at Orlando (ie, he's playing) and his P36 assists/TOs is 3.3 vs 1.3 (about 2.5 A/T ratio). Lance is dishing it at 2.9 vs 2.3 (about 1.3 A/T ratio). And per usual Josh is at 8.8 reb36 vs Tyler's 8.7 and 50% shooting vs 37%. So basically same old, same old. The Josh fans are just as right about him as the Lance fans.
                          Yep lets use the holly per36 stats to make a point ...... Plumlee per36 is 18 and 9 by the way yep future all star .......
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            But did he previously?

                            I never doubted his size/strength or his conditioning. My concern was lots of flash to moves that didn't really gain any advantage in the end and often ate more clock than helped the play. This is why people liked him more at the SG, except he wasn't really looking like a natural shooting threat.

                            I trust him to take shots now, obviously. But there's the risk that this is just a nice 8-17 streak over 7 games that won't hold up. It feels reliable but if this was player Q from Utah or GSW it wouldn't make me want to shove guys off the roster to get him, statistically speaking. In fact most of PD couldn't name any other 8 3PM so far guards for other teams. Martell Webster for Lance trade? How about trading for Jae Crowder? Lance for Bayless? Pondexter?

                            These are guys making the same amount of 3s at the same rate, and most are scoring more overall and getting more assists.

                            Lance was a 40th pick. In that regard he's a success because he's played the 25th most minutes in his class and might yet climb past a few more guys. He's 3rd in minutes past the 28th pick behind Fields and "token minutes" Harangody. Great bang for buck pick.



                            ** Of course someone had to make a McRoberts joke, yet Josh is 6th in minutes at Orlando (ie, he's playing) and his P36 assists/TOs is 3.3 vs 1.3 (about 2.5 A/T ratio). Lance is dishing it at 2.9 vs 2.3 (about 1.3 A/T ratio). And per usual Josh is at 8.8 reb36 vs Tyler's 8.7 and 50% shooting vs 37%. So basically same old, same old. The Josh fans are just as right about him as the Lance fans.
                            Lance doesn't necessarily have the look of a guy that can play extended minutes. That takes more than just practicing your shot and dribble moves. Never thought he'd be one to train hard in cardio. Maybe it's cause of his build.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                              Anything positive from Lance this season is great...I hold my breath of further continuation.
                              Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                              Comment


                              • Re: Let's discuss Lance

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                Anyone think we can get our own version of Linsanity? Pacers still have an offensive void and Lance looks to be in good position to fill it. Would it surprise anyone at this point if Lance runs off a string of 20 point games this season? I think the new Lance is capable of it.
                                I was thinking the exact same thing...

                                I don't think Lance is ever gonna be a superstar, but I'm definitely liking the potential of the Hill/Lance/PG backcourt, not just this year but for the next 5 years. If Granger sits out the whole year, continues to have injury issues, and we don't bring him back after next season, we could be looking at the long term starters for the Pacers. Or if Granger returns and PG doesn't show the type of improvement that warrents the kind of money that's gonna be offered to him in FA, maybe we'll be looking at a Hill/Lance/Granger backcourt...
                                Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X