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

Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

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

  • Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

    http://nba.si.com/2013/07/31/lance-s...s-frank-vogel/

    Indiana has done a nice job of making sensible and affordable upgrades to its bench this summer, but the influence of those additions pales in comparison to the impact that a soon-returning Danny Granger should have on the Pacers’ reserves. Whether Granger — who played only five games last season because of a left-knee injury — comes off the pine or not is almost immaterial on a macro level; he’ll log minutes with both sets of players and function as a volume shot creator for a team that lacked for such a contributor last season.

    But a more precise lineup arrangement has yet to be worked out, and with that comes intrigue. Paul George, Roy Hibbert, David West and George Hill will start games as a four-man core, but beyond them coach Frank Vogel will have the option of starting either guard Lance Stephenson, a bull-headed driver and defender who complements the other starters well, or Granger, who does more to score but with that skill could be more helpful in anchoring the second unit.

    For his part, Stephenson says he’s willing to take any role necessary for the good of the team. Here’s what he said in an interview with Michael Pointer of the Indianapolis Star:

    Q: Despite having an outstanding season, there’s been a lot of speculation you may go back to coming off the bench this season, especially if Danny Granger is healthy and ready. Would you be OK with that?

    A: I’m just coming in to play hard. Whatever coach (Frank Vogel) decides to do, I think it’s a great decision. Me coming off the bench, Danny coming off the bench, either way, we’re deep. Whatever helps the team, that’s what I want to do.

    If Stephenson is being honest (which would seem a safe bet, considering the outspoken source), this kind of open-mindedness allows Vogel to chase the pursuits that would ultimately be best for the Pacers on the whole. He can sift through specific player combinations and particular substitution options for the sake of best possible fit. Vogel understandably expresses public indecision on the subject (via Tom Lewis of Indy Cornrows):

    When asked directly about how he expects the roles of Granger and Stephenson to play out, Vogel committed to nothing other than planning to have both players approach the situation with the most positive mindset possible and then see what happens from there.

    “I don’t have a preconceived notion of how it’s going to play out,” Vogel told Mark Montieth on Pacers.com.

    “We’ll see how it plays out. I want Lance Stephenson fighting to not give up the starting spot, but willing to play off the bench if he needs to. I want Danny coming back thinking he’s going to come back as our best player. I want both of those guys approaching it that way and then we’ll see how it plays out.”

    There’s no use in Vogel’s jumping to any decision. Granger played so little last season that there’s almost no empirical basis from which to draw conclusions about his fit with this group. When Granger was last an integral piece, George was in no way the offensive asset he is now and Hibbert was in no way equipped to stay on the floor for major minutes. Both have changed, and with that comes an evolution of thought in how Granger can best help this team.

    It may take until the preseason for Vogel to determine his fifth starter, and even then he’ll have the chance to experiment with different substitution patterns throughout the year. What’s paramount here is that Vogel is seemingly trusted by the players themselves to do right by the team. Things could well change if the Pacers’ season is an unexpected struggle, but at the moment few in Vogel’s line of work would seem to have the same impressive level of coaching capital.

  • #2
    Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

    “We’ll see how it plays out. I want Lance Stephenson fighting to not give up the starting spot, but willing to play off the bench if he needs to. I want Danny coming back thinking he’s going to come back as our best player. I want both of those guys approaching it that way and then we’ll see how it plays out.”
    Now that Frank said this can we please stop the whole "wanting to start means your selfish ego will cause you to be upset at coming off the bench" thing?
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

      So we know that Lance is OK with whatever role the team asks of him. Have their been any similar quotes from Granger about being OK with coming off the bench? The only quotes I remember from him were right after the Miami series when he said he expected to be back in the starting lineup.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

        Can't find it but I recall Danny saying toward the end of the season or beginning of the playoffs that he would do whatever it took to help the team but that he was expecting to be able to start.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

          I'm not sure anyone has directly asked Danny hey would youc ome off the bench, but I would need to look around. Either way Frank will make it work and our guys will buy in.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

            Actually, this is just another example of "all for one and one for all".

            It is reasonable that Granger might not be ready for starters minutes beginning the season and therefore would not object to coming off the bench. I'd be willing to bet that if Scola subbed in for West and is performing extremely well, West wouldn't mind playing 20-22 minutes to Scola's 26-28 minutes.

            I think our guys, even the newbies are focusing on a single, common goal. And that goal is far bigger than worrying about one's minutes in any single game. Multiply that by 82 games, or even 100+ games and you have exactly what we want.

            "One for all, all for one."

            No individual player's feelings or desires are greater than the common goal. I think our team, from players 1 through 13, our coaches and our management lives and breathes this. I don't think it's merely true of Lance/Danny. I think it applies for the entire team.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

              It shouldn't be an issue, there are enough minutes to go around for all 3 of George, Granger, and Stephenson at the wings. Glad to see Lance is being a team player though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                It shouldn't be an issue, there are enough minutes to go around for all 3 of George, Granger, and Stephenson at the wings. Glad to see Lance is being a team player though.
                96 minutes to be exact. PG played 37-38 mpg last year, Lance played 29 mpg, Granger played around 33 mpg in 2012. My best guess is PG plays 36 MPG, Granger 32 MPG, Stephenson 28 MPG. This leaves no minutes for Copeland. This of course is if Danny is healthy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                  Good to know he is because he may be the 6th man for most of the season if Danny is back to his usual form. Man I am so excited for this team
                  Smothered Chicken!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                    Lance will be dishing to Scola in the post...and Copeland beyond the arc. If Granger is really healthy, we are going to destroy a lot of good teams.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                      Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                      This leaves no minutes for Copeland.
                      Not enough for regular minutes in the rotation. I'm sure he'll get some time here and there, and no doubt he realized before he came here that he isn't coming in ahead of those guys. He can shoot; there's bound to be plenty of situations in which that will be useful. He also only played about 15 mpg last year and managed to be productive. I think he played against the Pacers last year for maybe 10 minutes and ended up with double figure scoring. He's not going to get the time he had near the end of the year when he was putting up big scoring numbers, but his skills are still going to be useful to the team. I would expect to see P. George spending most of the time at SG next year. Copeland will be the backup for Granger. I think it's Orlando Johnson who will feel the squeeze for minutes behind P. George and Stephenson.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Now that Frank said this can we please stop the whole "wanting to start means your selfish ego will cause you to be upset at coming off the bench" thing?
                        I don't know how that proves anything. What was Lance going to say? I never thought Lance would be an a** about it during the season. But, if he has to come off the bench, I don't think he will be happy about it. He will do and say the right things and then at seasons end he will demand starter compensation and guarantees from either us or someone else. And I hope he has a season that is deserving of it

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                          Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                          I don't know how that proves anything. What was Lance going to say? I never thought Lance would be an a** about it during the season. But, if he has to come off the bench, I don't think he will be happy about it. He will do and say the right things and then at seasons end he will demand starter compensation and guarantees from either us or someone else. And I hope he has a season that is deserving of it
                          The post you quoted was not about Lance and his comments. So you are responding to something totally different. Maybe you meant to quote something else?
                          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                            Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                            I don't know how that proves anything. What was Lance going to say? I never thought Lance would be an a** about it during the season. But, if he has to come off the bench, I don't think he will be happy about it. He will do and say the right things and then at seasons end he will demand starter compensation and guarantees from either us or someone else. And I hope he has a season that is deserving of it
                            First, I don't buy a single word of this post. But if true, he better be clearly the best option or he will be gone.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Lance Stephenson is fine with coming off the bench - SI article

                              Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post
                              Not enough for regular minutes in the rotation. I'm sure he'll get some time here and there, and no doubt he realized before he came here that he isn't coming in ahead of those guys. He can shoot; there's bound to be plenty of situations in which that will be useful. He also only played about 15 mpg last year and managed to be productive. I think he played against the Pacers last year for maybe 10 minutes and ended up with double figure scoring. He's not going to get the time he had near the end of the year when he was putting up big scoring numbers, but his skills are still going to be useful to the team. I would expect to see P. George spending most of the time at SG next year. Copeland will be the backup for Granger. I think it's Orlando Johnson who will feel the squeeze for minutes behind P. George and Stephenson.
                              Last year we didn't have anyone averaging huge minutes off the bench. This year we'll have Scola and Lance getting 25-30 minutes which doesn't leave a lot for everyone else. Ian will feel the squeeze some but Copeland won't get much p.t.
                              Once Scola was brought in that eliminated minutes at the backup 4 for Copeland and he won't be getting much at the 3 either with Granger and PG playing there. I could see Copeland getting specialist minutes when we need a shooter on the floor and garbage minutes. I'd define a player as being in the rotation if they average 10 minutes or more, if they get 15 minutes here and there but average less then 10 I don't count them in the core rotation. By that I don't see Copeland as in our rotation unless someone goes down long term. It's nice to have the insurance policy but this is why I wish we'd demanded the team option for year 2 in his contract. This team is going to struggle to find money for our core players next year and every million makes a difference.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X