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

Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

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

  • #16
    Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

    Originally posted by flakcatcher View Post
    I agree about his lack of getting back on defense. I recall one play in particular when he pouted under the opposite rim for nearly the entire following offensive sequence by the Pacers. He needs to get his emotions under control. By that same token, his play is fueled by his emotion, and you don't want him to extinguish that fire entirely. It's a matter of balance.

    Another note: Any speculation about why he was upset with his teammates is just that--speculation. It's fine to suspect it was because he was chasing stats, but suspicion alone doesn't make it true.
    BTW, I'm trying to get my "Thanks" and my "Posts" Stats up... I've been getting the job done on "Posts" today, you guys need to get busy on the other end, i'm hovering around 240... My ratio is not where I'd like it to be and I don't want Frank to be sore and sick Shaw on me.

    I can't do this all by myself...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

      I don't think Lance is ready to be the starting point guard yet. But it does seem like Frank is experimenting with him in that role more and more. I'm guessing the Pacers move more in that direction next year when DJ leaves. Probably a year of Lance being the primary backup point guard. Then the following year he may be ready to start.

      I thought Lance's body language in the last game indicated he might be a bit winded. Not surprising since he's recovering from a foot injury.

      The thing about Lance is, he's extremely athletic. Not the kind of "jump out of the arena" athlete like Gerald Green but the body control and coordination type athlete. He seems to be able to focus on a skill and master it. Early in the season we saw the results of him focusing on his shooting when he showed tremendous improvement. Now he seems to be focusing on rebounding. And he's becoming very very good at it for a player of his size. I think he can learn to do whatever he needs to do to be successful. It'll be fun watching his game continue to grow.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

        I still don't think he has the right mentality to be a PG. What you want in a PG is a calm general, who is strategic, tactical, and logical. Not someone who plays on their emotions, which is what Lance does. Your PG needs to be a controlling force on the court. Lance is not that. He might do fine as a back-up at point, but you need more mentally from your starting point.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

          Originally posted by flakcatcher View Post
          Forgive me if this has already been discussed ad nauseam here; I'm a lurker who doesn't visit PD daily. But I haven't seen any recent posts dedicated to the topic, so here goes.

          I splurged and bought 7th row center court seats to last night's game, and it was never more obvious to me that Lance is by far the most natural point guard on the floor for the Pacers.

          While he does still get out of control at times and still makes the errant pass or ill-advised drive, those instances are growing fewer by the day. Meanwhile his court vision is unrivaled on the team (I wouldn't use the term "court vision" in the same sentence with Hill--and I really like Hill), he's a strong passer, and nobody pushes the ball up the floor like Lance does. And while Hill's floater is great, Lance is much better at getting into the lane, and he finds more creative ways to finish once he's there.

          Why not move Hill to SG and let Lance run the point? Then Hill can come off the bench when Granger returns. It seems like a viable--maybe even a good--idea to me. What about you? I'm interested in hearing arguments from both sides.
          thanks for posting. yes thats pretty much what im saying in the Lance Stephenson for MIP nominee thread. to answer your question.. no Lance is not ready. but he may be ready by next season and it looks like Vogel is experimenting with the idea already.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

            Hell No
            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

              Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
              I thought the same thing last night. He showed flashes of pure brilliance on offense, but he did seem pretty disinterested in getting back on defense a few times. I still thought he was our best player last night and IMO basically the only excitement in a pretty boring Wednesday night game at the Fieldhouse.
              There was 1 particular offensive play in the 1st half where Lance ended up on the ground on a turnover, and he literally sat on the court then got up and walked back down on defense. The Pistons had their offense set up and in motion before Lance was past the half court line. It had me in a tizzy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                I've been thinking this for a while. I can't believe there's still people who don't agree with moving Lance to play PG, or at least not having him be the 5th option. He is extremely limited in this offense, which I understand with his past over-excitements and errors, but he has drastically improved on that end. Plus, sometimes when he makes these "mistakes" they aren't really on him, he isn't to blame that his teammates sometimes don't see a play the same way he does. (his vision is best on the team no question)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                  Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                  There was 1 particular offensive play in the 1st half where Lance ended up on the ground on a turnover, and he literally sat on the court then got up and walked back down on defense. The Pistons had their offense set up and in motion before Lance was past the half court line. It had me in a tizzy.
                  Yeah, I was thinking of that play in particular. A couple of other times he just kind of jogged up and was the last man across.
                  Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                    I was calling for Lance to be the backup PG earlier this year, but DJ has definitely improved. I think it makes sense for Lance to continue to run as a 2-guard for this year, and see where he's at when we get to the summer. I wouldn't be opposed to letting Lance run the 2nd unit if he progresses as much in the next 12 months as he has in the last 12.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      I like Lance, and don't necessarily think he can't play point, there's no reason why he can't, but I'm starting to believe it is unnecessary. If you're a good distributor such as Lance, there is no reason you can't do that while playing the two.

                      Kind of like Harden/Ginobili, Lance can play next to any point and it just puts one more distributor on the court.
                      I am thinking this might be interesting: Let Lance start the offense. Let George Hill be ready to get the ball with 8-10 seconds left, if it comes to that, to make something happen. He's pretty solid in those situations.

                      This allows Lance to use his skills to open things up, penetrate, make a great pass to loosen the defense. Hill may get the ball a lot sooner than 8 seconds remaining, and we will see a lot of scoring this way. Hill may score more this way. Lance will certainly get things going in the half court a lot more quickly than Hill does.

                      But it puts the "mature general" in the driver's seat if things get difficult.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        I was calling for Lance to be the backup PG earlier this year, but DJ has definitely improved. I think it makes sense for Lance to continue to run as a 2-guard for this year, and see where he's at when we get to the summer. I wouldn't be opposed to letting Lance run the 2nd unit if he progresses as much in the next 12 months as he has in the last 12.
                        DJ has improved, but he still sucks monkey balls. OJ, Hans and Ian are the only bench players that have done anything of real value this season. Ian has usually been the only steady force on the bench. Hans has played well of late, but still not a fan particularly because of his defense. OJ, well you can see he has a chance to be a very good role player. DJ is just terrible because his offense will never make up for his defense, and Green was complete fools gold.

                        When Granger comes back, I'd be for Lance getting the backup pg spot and OJ keeping minutes as the backup sg.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                          DJ has improved, but he still sucks monkey balls. OJ, Hans and Ian are the only bench players that have done anything of real value this season. Ian has usually been the only steady force on the bench. Hans has played well of late, but still not a fan particularly because of his defense. OJ, well you can see he has a chance to be a very good role player. DJ is just terrible because his offense will never make up for his defense, and Green was complete fools gold.

                          When Granger comes back, I'd be for Lance getting the backup pg spot and OJ keeping minutes as the backup sg.
                          Aside from last night, and maybe 2 other games this month, I can't think of any other games where he hasn't done more harm than good on the court.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                            If Lance ever gets moved to the "starting PG" slot, I don't think it will be because he has acquired the necessary NBA point guard mindset and skillset. It will be because the coaching staff and George Hill decide that the offense would be better served by having our best pure guard play off the ball, which is where Hill is currently best at. Any change in playing situation will be all about Hill.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                              Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                              There was 1 particular offensive play in the 1st half where Lance ended up on the ground on a turnover, and he literally sat on the court then got up and walked back down on defense. The Pistons had their offense set up and in motion before Lance was past the half court line. It had me in a tizzy.
                              This is something to watch, but it's not like we haven't seen it with other players. I don't know if Lance has the maturity or the leadership skills needed to be PG, but he has the raw skills. I think his skills are not only interesting but he has a chance to be special.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is now the time for Lance to move to PG?

                                That was Larry's vision. A sane Lance at PG makes the offense alot better. I think one day he'll be our starting PG, but at this point it's hard to argue against how the coaching staff's developing him. I do wanna see what a Lance/Paul/Danny/David/Roy lineup looks like at some point during the season. That could be fun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X