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

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

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Paul is the athlete. I've never raved about Lance's hops Mattie. I don't know where you all get that. I've raved about his toughness, his rebounding, his defense, his ability to drive and dish, his ability to see the floor and deliver to the post. As for dribbling, I have not directly emphasized that but he's better than Paul and Danny at that. It's good enough that he can be very effective driving to the bucket which is good enough. He's not exactly Jamaal Tinsley, but neither is DWade. Lance's handle is definitely good enough and his vision is great. Again, you might have another 2 or 3 months to hop on the bus...
    I mean. He's not as good as Paul OR Danny at getting to the hoop. Stop believing what you want to believe and just take what you see at face value. Lance is not a good ball handler. He's got some nice moves. The guy could really tighten up his handling and maybe be a good slasher. He'd have to build to that level. I'm not saying he can't. I won't say IS that player right now because he's not.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
      With that talent level how did LeBron and Wade manage to upset Lance and friends? We should be holding GOAT discussions, not discussing whether or not he should start. It's so clear now.

      EDIT// I mean, I know you're high on him but come on. If Lance was out injured right now we would still be a contending team. He is very good but he's not to the point where he's vital for the team's success. Everything you posted, with just a slight changing of the ranks on the teams, can also refer to George Hill. He's got gaudy numbers right now, but he didn't play particularly well against the Pelicans. If he can keep up this production all year and into the playoffs he will very much be a vital piece of our team. But right now we're talking about the best two game sequence of his career.
      Oh I see reverse phisocology, NO if Lance is out we are not contenders he is called the Pacers X factor for a reason, not only that but nobody can replace his D(nobody on the bench), Lance is out and we are 0-2 instead of 2-0.

      Seriously if DG was putting the numbers Lance is putting right now in two games some of you would be opening threads about how he can be the Pacers first MVP and a bunch of crazy comments but is Lance so "it has only been 2 games", yeah right.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


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

        This is what Lance has shown so far: He's physical which could lead to him possibly becoming a great defender, (he's pretty good right now) and someone that is good at slashing to the basket. He is not good at that now. He's shown that he has strong court vision. It's remarkable some of the passes he has made. Once again, this has not actually turned into him being a great play maker. I could see that happening. But it hasn't happened yet.

        Comment


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

          Actually OJ has played pretty impressive D so far in the first two games. I wouldnt' be surprised if he turns into a better defender than Lance. Lance's defensive abilities are greatly overrated. He was pretty good last year. Why his stans have to make it out like he's truly great on defense is beyond me.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Guess what Paul George averaged in the 2012 playoffs?

            9.7 PPG

            I'm not saying that Lance is going to explode into an offensive machine like Paul George. But you have to keep in mind that last year was the first year in which Lance played big minutes. And he was just 22 years old, the age of most college seniors. The 20 point playoff game showed what Lance is capable of if he gets a green light to do what he wants offensively. That is exactly what he's done the first two games of this season.
            Yeah, and did you see anyone argue that PG played "great" in the 2012 playoffs? No! That's what is so absurd about this. PG, who has shown a ton of talent since he entered the league had us all excited about his promise. However, no one said anything about how great he was until he actually proved it. Lance has done NOTHING yet. WHy can't we leave it at that until he proves otherwise?

            Comment


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

              Lance had a stretch of 4 games last year I think in february where he averaged something like 16 points per game. He was playing fantastic. I was so excited, I thought had seriously made a major leap. But he hadn't.. He just had a nice stretch of games, but he was still the same inconsistent player. I have high hopes for him. Nothing would make me happier than to see him succeed.

              However, this doesn't make me want to live in a fantasy land where I choose to believe Lance has proven himself to be a great player, and the reason the Pacers are winning. I mean I honestly wonder if Orlando Johnson is better than him RIGHT NOW.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                I promise someone will come in tell me how wrong I am for saying Lance isn't a good dribbler. Which is hilarious because it takes all of about 5 seconds before Lance loses control of the ball and has to gain control of it again. Lance dribbling should be called controlled chaos. It's a disaster that somehow doesn't turn into a turnover much.
                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                Actually OJ has played pretty impressive D so far in the first two games. I wouldnt' be surprised if he turns into a better defender than Lance.
                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                I mean I honestly wonder if Orlando Johnson is better than him RIGHT NOW.

                Glad you are making all these posts. I mean, where would good entertainment be without the Washington Generals or the Coyote?
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Glad you are making all these posts. I mean, where would good entertainment be without the Washington Generals or the Coyote?
                  All of my posts had a point, and a fair argument. What's the point of your post?

                  More Lance Stans to the rescue please...

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    All of my posts had a point, and a fair argument. What's the point of your post?
                    The point of my post was to marvel at yours.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      I mean. He's not as good as Danny at getting to the hoop.
                      I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by pogi View Post
                        I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.
                        Particularly right now. Danny isn't playing and there is no proof he will ever be the same player. Time to turn the page...

                        Comment


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

                          I think Lance has some good potential, and I do believe he is a key cog to the team...but I also feel some of the ideas about his game are a tad overblown on this board at times. Anytime a player who has yet to average double figures for an entire season is dubbed things such as "a poor man's Lebron" it can be viewed as a bit over the top (seeing as Lebron is already a top 10 Nba Player of all time) This is why Mattie says the hyperbole can be a bit much.

                          We point to Lance's FG% to show that he's an efficiently skilled, high level offensive player--but we don't mention the fact that he was in the top 5 in the league in field goals that were assisted last year. We also don't mention that he was the 5th option offensively so most of his shots were either wide open, or within a favorable situation. This isn't a knock on Lance as a guy like Gerald Green showed that not everybody can be as efficient offensively, but it brings a little bit of perspective to Lance as a player.

                          So far this year Lance has shown improvements of his 3point shot, as well as his confidence overall. He's taken more advantage of his strength advantages in fast and semi break situations, and is getting himself an extra 4-6 ppg by offensive rebound put backs. Defensively he's still a plus--showing the same aggressiveness and bravado, but as Eric Gordon showed-- he's still not exactly a lockdown defender either.

                          All in all when I see Lance I see a cross between a smarter Rodney Stuckey and a more Wesley Matthews. Both are bigger, more physical two guards that are aggressive at getting to the cup. (Stuckey is craftier with his In-between game, and has a better handle and court vision, whereas Matthews is the better defender and 3pt shooter--hence a mix of the two when I see Lance.)

                          I'm sure some will feel its a slap in the face because I'm not comparing him to Chauncey Billups or Lebron, but it's not a knock on Lance at all as both players are legit 2-guards in this league and that's coming a long way for Lance seeing as he barely saw the court in his two seasons before last. The big difference between Lance and the other two is that he's been able to play with a team trying to contend and be great as he is growing into his niche as an NBA player. This is huge for a players development and confidence (see Paul George, Kawai Leonard, James Harden)

                          The best part about all this is we are only two games into the season and have a long way to go to judge Lance and to see where he is currently as a player, and where he could be as a player down the line.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Particularly right now. Danny isn't playing and there is no proof he will ever be the same player. Time to turn the page...
                            Till we see Granger actually play and produce this is actually true. And this is from DG fanboy nĂºmero uno

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              Yeah, and did you see anyone argue that PG played "great" in the 2012 playoffs? No! That's what is so absurd about this. PG, who has shown a ton of talent since he entered the league had us all excited about his promise. However, no one said anything about how great he was until he actually proved it. Lance has done NOTHING yet. WHy can't we leave it at that until he proves otherwise?
                              I think that's what still bothers me about Lance. And it's not even Lance's fault.

                              He's impressed me. I never thought he'd be as good as he is. Early on, he showed a lack of bball IQ and an inability to play a team game, immaturity (with no signs of changing), a poor shot, an inability to finish at the rim, and in general he was out of control. Just all the signs of a player people tend to get excited about, but never turn out well. (I've seen it so many times at the college level..).

                              He was a rare case that worked out. Because he had someone (Larry Bird..) backing him, and because he took it upon himself to change and get better. Good for him, good for the Pacers, and good for the fans who needed a positive story.

                              That being said, the guy gets more love than any Pacer. When Paul George was playing at a higher level than Lance, people were questioning whether he would just turn into Brandon Rush 2.0. Although Danny's health is a concern, it's totally possible that Danny comes back healthy and plays at a higher level than Lance is playing..and possibly might ever play at. Yet, you get the impression from a lot of people that they'd trade just about anyone in order to keep Lance. (maybe not Paul George. maybe. But there have been plenty of posters insisting that Lance will be a better player than PG.)

                              Look, I'm more than willing to admit I was wrong about the guy. And I'm happy too. But the hype still significantly outweighs what he's actually accomplished. (And given what realistic expectations were, he's certainly accomplished a lot.) Calm down guys.

                              Comment


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

                                Rodney Stuckey is not a bad comparison and isn't a slap in the face to Lance supporters...or shouldn't be. Stuckey is a notch below all-star caliber which is where Lance is trying to prove himself. But Lance has more potential. Lance blows away Stuckey on rebounds. Lance is 25 lbs heavier people...a lot more physical. He's a better shooter. Look at Stuckey's FG% historically. Lance may never shoot that bad. Yet Stuckey is a very good NBA player. Again, there are a few seats left on the bus. Hop on before it fills up.

                                Also, a poor man's LeBron is a subjective phrase. I used that phrase and I don't think it says anything other than he's a well rounded, talented and physical player...which he is. He has the court vision, ability to drive to the rack, rebound, etc. These are simply the facts. That's not to say he's LeBron. He is really a poor man's LeBron and I stand by that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X