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

Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

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

  • #91
    Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    I'm confused. Which Paul are you talking about?
    I think the point he was making is that he was confused why Lance's point guard skills were being compared to Paul George's. Up to that point in the conversation, the Lance Paule George point guard skill comparison had not been brought up by anyone else.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Lance has a gift of recognizing when plays may be developing...well before they do.
      It's a Jedi trait.


      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        In an interview the other day, Vogel was pretty clear when asked about Lance playing point guard—that the position very much requires leadership and maturity qualities. He basically said without saying it that Lance has all the physical qualities and basketball skills to play point, but that he's not ready to hand over floor leadership responsibilities to him.

        This is an argument I can buy. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but we all know Lance is a wildcard. Just watching him on the floor screams "give him the reigns!" Vogel is not doing that. He's told us why. I can respect it.

        However, I don't know about you all, but I'm seeing leadership qualities by Lance on the floor. I'm seeing him talk a lot to teammates on defense, point out places on the floor that need to be covered, etc. He's also been willing to be a follower, which is an important first step to becoming a leader.

        That said, if he ends up developing the qualities Vogel says he needs to have, he could very likely become our backup point guard, and a damn good one. If he continues to improve at this arc, Vogel will have the very excellent problem during the playoffs of who to sit at the end of games.
        Perhaps this will come off as too candid, but I don't think his words and behaviors over the past few years have commanded respect and a aura of maturity from the rest of the team. He's not very well spoken, he's a bit of a ham, and comes off as a wildcard. Kind of like Cousins, or Beasley, or someone of that ilk.

        All of that aside, I think he's putting in really solid effort to become a more mature, more composed, more poised personality both on and off the court. I still think he has a way to go, but it's so unbelievably clear that he can play well and that he wants to be the player that we know he can become.

        If the game was all about skills and talent, then I think he'd be playing as a PG. Alas, he still has some personal work to do. He has to learn to represent himself as a professional. My guess is that this will come. Hopefully in about 1.5 years, AFTER we resign him to another 4 year, low dollar deal.
        Last edited by docpaul; 12-22-2012, 11:57 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          In an interview the other day, Vogel was pretty clear when asked about Lance playing point guard—that the position very much requires leadership and maturity qualities. He basically said without saying it that Lance has all the physical qualities and basketball skills to play point, but that he's not ready to hand over floor leadership responsibilities to him.

          This is an argument I can buy. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but we all know Lance is a wildcard. Just watching him on the floor screams "give him the reigns!" Vogel is not doing that. He's told us why. I can respect it.

          However, I don't know about you all, but I'm seeing leadership qualities by Lance on the floor. I'm seeing him talk a lot to teammates on defense, point out places on the floor that need to be covered, etc. He's also been willing to be a follower, which is an important first step to becoming a leader.

          That said, if he ends up developing the qualities Vogel says he needs to have, he could very likely become our backup point guard, and a damn good one. If he continues to improve at this arc, Vogel will have the very excellent problem during the playoffs of who to sit at the end of games.
          Great to hear that from Vogel; that's exactly what I'd hoped.

          Last year, Vogel told Lance exactly what he needed to do to get playing time: defend better, rotate better, play in the team concept, and shoot better. Lance has done those things. If he's being challenged to step up in the leadership and maturity areas, then so much the better.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

            Originally posted by kmjohnson View Post
            I think the point he was making is that he was confused why Lance's point guard skills were being compared to Paul George's. Up to that point in the conversation, the Lance Paule George point guard skill comparison had not been brought up by anyone else.
            The following comment is what I was responding to.

            Anthem said...."Ok, somebody help me here. Several people have mentioned this, but I didn't see it. When did he get burn at PG last night?

            I saw him bring the ball up some and initiate the offense, but that's something that both of our wings do. Paul George did it a few times as well."

            Lance and Paul's point guard like responsibilities are being discussed.
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

              Originally posted by owl View Post
              The following comment is what I was responding to.

              Anthem said...."Ok, somebody help me here. Several people have mentioned this, but I didn't see it. When did he get burn at PG last night?

              I saw him bring the ball up some and initiate the offense, but that's something that both of our wings do. Paul George did it a few times as well."

              Lance and Paul's point guard like responsibilities are being discussed.
              I lost track of the point of all this, but here's my thoughts:

              For whatever reason last night, there was about a two or three possession stretch where Lance brought the ball up and apparently was allowed to run the pick and roll. He NEVER runs the pick and roll. He gets to lead a fast break if its there. If not, he passes to Hill who runs a pick and roll (sometimes PG gets to).

              I don't really care about the point guard part. I like the fact he actually got to run the offense. I think it led to a score nearly every time.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                Great second half last night. I loved how aggressive the Pacers were as a team, playing with a real swagger. Some of our backups are starting to step up and play at a high level too (Ian, Green and Tyler). I think the team is starting to come together as a team. That's one of the things I love about Tyler and I think is a huge intangible, he backs up the other players on this team.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                  Originally posted by owl View Post
                  So Lance is definitely looked at by the Pacers as being able to play the point guard role. Many on here felt he did not have the ability. The only thing left is for his maturity level to reach his physical abilities.
                  No.

                  Frank Vogel's exact comment made directly to me is, "Lance is a 2." I've asked Vogel numerous times about Lance this season in various contexts. I do not think Vogel believes that Stephenson will ever develop in the areas that he (Vogel) deems necessary to make him a point guard. It is not simply a question of maturity or experience.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                    Lance has the skills of a playmaker (i.e. passing and vision), but not really the composure, mentality, and floor general skills of a PG. Also it doesn't seem to me that he would have the quickness to guard most PGs. SO even though he has some of the skills normally associated with the PG position, he doesn't have the other skills to be a full time starting PG. I am a little more lenient as to what kind of player you have as a back-up PG. Often times you don't have the skills at the other bench positions to take full advantage of having a true PG on the bench, or the ability to find a true PG that is good enough to play as there just aren't that many.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                      I think all the talk about Lance's role as a PG or SG is irrelevant. I personally don't care which "title" he is given, I use the term title because a lot of teams in today's basketball are really making the 5 positions blended and unimportant. Teams are starting 2 PGs, playing 2 PGs together, playing 2 combo guards together (no true point), I mean in the end what really matters is what Lance's role in the offense is, not his position. I think up until this point (maybe the last couple of games before he got hurt this wasn't entirely true) none of our offense has been run for Lance. He seems to be the only starter that doesn't really get "his number" called in the offense. All of his offense seems to come from random open looks and transition, but I think he has proven himself as a good enough offensive decision maker that he needs to actually be a part of the offense now. Much like Vogel has made a distinct effort to get PG involved early and often I think Lance needs some love as well (not saying as much, but some). I would love to see for every 4 pick and rolls called between Hill and West, that Lance get at least 1 of them, or maybe some wing iso pick and rolls with Hibbert. Whatever it may be I'd like to see Lance get some kind of plays set for his skill set.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        No.

                        Frank Vogel's exact comment made directly to me is, "Lance is a 2." I've asked Vogel numerous times about Lance this season in various contexts. I do not think Vogel believes that Stephenson will ever develop in the areas that he (Vogel) deems necessary to make him a point guard. It is not simply a question of maturity or experience.
                        Ok but that contradicts what McKey Fan was quoting from and interview. You said "I do not" so I guess time will tell
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Lance has the skills of a playmaker (i.e. passing and vision), but not really the composure, mentality, and floor general skills of a PG. Also it doesn't seem to me that he would have the quickness to guard most PGs. SO even though he has some of the skills normally associated with the PG position, he doesn't have the other skills to be a full time starting PG. I am a little more lenient as to what kind of player you have as a back-up PG. Often times you don't have the skills at the other bench positions to take full advantage of having a true PG on the bench, or the ability to find a true PG that is good enough to play as there just aren't that many.
                          I have been concerned about his ability to guard the PG position, but not as a backup. I don't think he's proven himself on that. But his composure is pretty good, he is showing some leadership and he plays within himself while working hard to involve team mates. I think he's gaining on this front as well. The only thing I think that could nag him is guarding the ultra quick PG's. Otherwise, I think he's getting close.

                          With that said, the issue isn't the position Vogel is playing him and it's not about what Vogel has said. Eveyone knows Vogel has said he's a SG and he's using him that way. That has little to do with what lies in the future for Lance. There's a very good chance Vogel is just taking things slow.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Cavaliers Postgame Thread 12/21/12

                            Stephenson Shines For The Pacers
                            From Elias: Lance Stephenson made seven of his eight shots from the field and handed out seven assists for the Pacers Friday night. Only two other players in the NBA this season took at least eight shots with that high a field-goal percentage and handed out at least seven assists in a game this season. Both of those players did it on Nov. 9: Brian Roberts of the Hornets against the Bobcats (7-for-8, eight assists) and Jeff Teague of the Hawks against the Heat (7-for-8, 11 assists).
                            http://espn.go.com/nba/team/_/name/ind/indiana-pacers

                            Don't know if anybody posted this. Kinda interesting. Not really great company to be in, but it's kinda cool.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X