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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • #31
    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    I don't like Lance as a PG because I think you want a certain personality type at PG who you can trust to make the right decision the majority of times. A PG that is more of a thinker and strategist than an instinctual/emotional player. Hill and Lance are kind of opposites in this regard. Lance has the PG skills, but plays more on instinct and emotions, and Hill has the right mentality, but doesn't have the traditional PG skills. I put a lot more weight on the mentality than the skills though. While Hill's skills as a PG are not great, they are good enough.
    I think I agree with this, to an extent. As of right now, I trust Hill to get Lance the ball (or at least to get the ball to a place where Lance can get it) when he's in the zone. I'm not certain anyone else would get a touch if Point Guard Lance was feeling it. I suppose I could be stuck in the old Lance Stephenson paradigm, though. It's hard with him to reconcile the three Lances - the Lance that used to be, the Lance that is, and the Lance that could be.

    I'll have to see some things to be convinced there's any reason to change the current order. Which, to be fair, is I think what Hicks was saying.
    "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

    "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      From what I recall Magic Johnson wasn't a Mensa...and he had flash...and he was pretty talented and effective as a PG.

      Afaic Lance is basically a smaller and less talented version of LeBron James...and he is probably the second most talented Pacer at the moment.

      edit: not as valuable as hibbert tho

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        My opinion of last night was that Lance impressed the crap out of me. Do I want him at PG, not yet. I see flashes of him being the starting PG type player, but I don't think he is there yet. He didn't freight train all the way down the court last night and just throw up any shot. He did his freight train, but with more control. He would get under the free throw line and then look to pass it back out. What I didn't see to much was see him bring the ball up the court after a made shot and set up the offense and have it run threw him. I think he needs to do that more to win me over.
        The one thing I think that has to happen is Lance Stephenson has to be on this team for the 2014 season and beyond.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          I don't see any needs to make any changes at this point. I do think that Lance should remain the starter and play some minutes with the second unit as well but as long as he continues playing aggressive but under control, there are no changes needed.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            I guess I just didn't feel like I was watching a point guard last night. I was watching a really athletic creative 2. Which is what he is.

            If you look at how Lance played with the starters, he was like Tony Allen on steroids basically, he got some good putbacks scored a bit in transition and generally let Paul and West gobble up most of the ball.

            Once he hit the bench, he got the ball more but I still felt like he was playing more like a Wade than say big athletic point guard like Westbrook.
            Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-30-2013, 04:32 PM.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by Brohan Cruyff View Post
              I trust Hill to get Lance the ball (or at least to get the ball to a place where Lance can get it) when he's in the zone.
              First of all, it's nice to see you posting. You are a new face/name for me, and we need thoughtful contributors.

              Secondly, I disagree
              Lance is far better at getting the ball to people where they want it than Hill is.


              Originally posted by Brohan Cruyff View Post
              I'm not certain anyone else would get a touch if Point Guard Lance was feeling it. I suppose I could be stuck in the old Lance Stephenson paradigm, though. It's hard with him to reconcile the three Lances - the Lance that used to be, the Lance that is, and the Lance that could be.
              This is a mistake and the wrong stereotype. You're not the only person on here saying such things. Lance is far more prone to pass the ball than Hill, really, than anyone on the team. He has always been that way.

              I guess people are so used to a shucking, juking, flashy type players to be a selfish ball hogs that they put Lance in that category. But he is categorically NOT.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Lance isn't a ball hog, but just because a guy is a willing passer doesn't mean he's a point guard.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I guess I just didn't feel like I was watching a point guard last night. I was watching a really athletic creative 2. Which is what he is.

                  If you look at how Lance played with the starters, he was like Tony Allen on steroids basically, he got some good putbacks scored a bit in transition and generally let Paul and West gobble up most of the ball.

                  Once he hit the bench, he got the ball more but I still felt like he was playing more like a Wade than say big athletic point guard like Westbrook.
                  I don't think CJ initiated the offense a single time him and Lance were on the floor together. In fact, he recieved an inbounds pass, and immediately passed to Lance to bring the ball up. Does it really matter whether or not he's considered one, when he's clearly being used as one?

                  Maybe it was just because he had it rolling, but he was clearly the primary ball handler with the second unit IMHO.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    First of all, it's nice to see you posting. You are a new face/name for me, and we need thoughtful contributors.

                    Secondly, I disagree
                    Lance is far better at getting the ball to people where they want it than Hill is.




                    This is a mistake and the wrong stereotype. You're not the only person on here saying such things. Lance is far more prone to pass the ball than Hill, really, than anyone on the team. He has always been that way.

                    I guess people are so used to a shucking, juking, flashy type players to be a selfish ball hogs that they put Lance in that category. But he is categorically NOT.
                    Yeah, I don't think I'm getting my point across well here, and I'm not really sure that I can, but I'll try anyway. I don't think he's a ballhog or selfish (and since I haven't posted much here, let me say now and for the record that I absolutely adore Lance, and was happy as hell that he came on the way he did last year), and I know he can pass the ball well. I'm just afraid that if he's made the primary ballhandler, and he gets on one of those runs he gets on where it seems like he can get to the rim at will, he could get tunnel vision like he has on occasion in the past. But that's honestly not why I think I'd wait to make a change of any kind here - it's more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" thing. So I'm not sure it even matters.
                    "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

                    "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Lance had a great game last night. I think you have to a decent share of his good games and bad games to get an accurate picture of what he will be as a player this year. It's why Hicks qualified this entire thread with a bunch of IFs. Lance played like an allstar last night, but anybody taking it as evidence that that is going to be his average production for the year is jumping the gun a bit. Let's just wait and see.

                      I understand many are not doing this, but I think people need to remember that we're looking at a game and not a trend at the moment. If he continues to play this way once defenses actually start paying attention to him then you have yourself a guy who deserves all the praise we can give and all of the money the Pacers are going to throw at him.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I don't think CJ initiated the offense a single time him and Lance were on the floor together. In fact, he recieved an inbounds pass, and immediately passed to Lance to bring the ball up. Does it really matter whether or not he's considered one, when he's clearly being used as one?

                        Maybe it was just because he had it rolling, but he was clearly the primary ball handler with the second unit IMHO.
                        And Lance only had one turnover. That I find impressive considering some of his activity.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          I mean if the basic argument is let Lance be the primary ballhandler with the bench guys, then yeah ok do it big time.

                          If the argument expands into, let's make him the primary ballhandler with the starts, I'm going to say nope


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            If Lance progresses the way that he is....why can't Lance be a Wade-like Player in the roster?

                            Specifically....the proverbial SG on the floor that also handles some of the ball-handling duties while creating offense for other Players...either in the Starting Lineup or ( more than likely ) in the 2nd unit when GH sits and CJ starts playing.

                            IMHO...Lance's progression won't affect GH. I think that GH, Lance and CJ fit how Vogel wants his offense run where the offense isn't run exclusively with a ball-dominant PG but with multiple ball-handlers with extensive ball movement among whoever is on the floor. Having GH or CJ man the proverbial PG spot in the lineup won't matter. Half the time....GH or CJ will be running the offense with the ball in their hands....whereas other times...Lance or PG24 will have the ball in their hands to create offense for others where CJ or GH are waiting at the 3pt line for a kick out of the ball.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Why not just go with what they have ?? Hill can bring the ball up and initiate the offense. So can PG. So can Lance.

                              'Getting the ball in the hands of the point guard' takes time. A few seconds ?? Sure. But when that few seconds mean someone jacking up an ugly shot or making a pass to someone that can take a better shot - it's time well saved. There are options. It's like there's a hot brunette, redhead and blonde. All of them are capable. Why not utilize them all ?? Why settle for just one ??

                              But seriously - the more guys that can get the offense going, the better. A lot of good things can come from it. The defense needs to react to it. Maybe catch them off guard for an easy hoop. All sorts of possibilities.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Lance Stephenson is a beast and my favorite player to watch, the end.
                                *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X