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 vnzla81 View Post
    You are acting like Lance can't pass the ball like Danny, actually the reason I don't want Danny in the starting unit is because there is only one ball and we all know how he likes to deflate it and how he likes to jackup shots, Lance is more of a team player.
    Given the number of ball handlers in the starting lineup, wouldn't it make more sense for a creator and ball handler like Lance to play as much with the Starters as much with the bench?
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Lance is shooting pretty well people. He is also quite capable of dishing to Paul, Hibbert and West. Why not get ALL the players involved instead of just rely on Granger's perimeter shot. Danny isn't going to facilitate a darn thing. Paul would turn it over if he tried. George Hill protects the ball but is not strong at passing the ball. The bottom line is that I recognize Granger will help spread the floor and hit threes but I think Lance can do some of that and a lot more other things to help when we are competing against the other team's very best players.
      We don't need the 3 point shot for our perimeter players. We need the 3 point shot in order to establish space in the post for our two bigs and punish any double teams.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Exactly. I just don't like the idea that a team that went to Game 7 of the ECF's last year and is off to a hot start this year needs to rearrange a key part of its lineup just so they can make things easier for a guy who hasn't played consistent ball since May 2012.

        Granger needs to adapt to the current Pacers team, not the other way around.
        Honestly, screw "that guy". I just want a 40% 3 point shooter in the starting line-up for our bigs. Can I have that? If I can then I don't give a **** if he's called Granger, Stephenson or Harry the Martian.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Not at the moment and I think people need to start adjusting expectations. Part of the issue here is that some of us don't believe he's coming back 100%. Most players who take a year off don't come back 100% and many are rusty the entire year. This is not the whole story on this issue, but it's part of it. Danny isn't going to be the same player again and people need to come to terms with that.
          David West wasn't 100% in his first year here but he was still a pretty darn good player, wouldn't you agree? I'd also say that 10-11 David West (pre-injury) is almost the same with 12-13 David West.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Given the number of ball handlers in the starting lineup, wouldn't it make more sense for a creator and ball handler like Lance to play as much with the Starters as much with the bench?
            We don't have a number of ball handlers in the starting lineup I don't know were are you getting that from, Hill is average and neither West/Roy are ball handlers, in reality Paul George is the only one that does a decent job at handling the ball but as we know he turns the ball over a lot, so at the end of the day you still need Lance in the starting unit.

            By the way I thought we knew this 2 years ago when everybody kept saying that we needed a ball handler, some people even wanted Suckleavy back because of this.
            @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.

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              The report is that Houston is looking to drop Lin to whoever wants him he is not that good reason why he doesn't start and any smart coach would start current Lance with Harden those 2 together could give teams a lot of trouble.
              Here is the link to ClutchFans -> http://bbs.clutchfans.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9

              If there were any reports about what you're saying then they would be reported there. As you can see nothing is reported. So, I call BS on your "reports".
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


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

                For me it isn't about the starting line-up. The starters + Lance or the starters + Danny either way we have a top 3 starting line-up in the league. For me it is about Watson, Orlando, and Ian. I have a question I want people to answer. Will their skills be taken advantage of best with Danny or Lance?

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Look, is absolutely true that any discussion surrounding Danny is a theoritical one at this point. I agree that we will need to see him play first before we draw any kind of conclusions.

                  But allow me to answer in your first paragraph. Let's use the following hypothesis:

                  We rank how a player plays from 1 to 10 (with 1 being awful and 10 being awesome) and these are the results:

                  Lance is producing a 8 with the starters and a 10 with the bench.

                  Granger is producing a 8 with the starters and a 6 with the bench.

                  What would you do in that case?

                  That's the point I'm trying to make. I just think that Lance will be so much better when he has the full control of our offense as a 6th man that it's the best for the team to use him in that capacity.

                  Of course, Lance has been amazing in these first 3 games. If he keeps playing like that then I want him out there in every opportunity.
                  I generally get what you're saying. But playoff games tend to be won by the starters. Now you certainly need a better bench than the one the Pacers trotted out last year, but in general starters decide playoff games. That's why we went as far as we did last year. So you also have to put a value on being a starter versus being a bench player. If the starting lineup is better with one player than the other, then it should be weighed more heavily.

                  But yeah, we both agree that this is an extremely theoretical conversation.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    You are acting like Lance can't pass the ball like Danny, actually the reason I don't want Danny in the starting unit is because there is only one ball and we all know how he likes to deflate it and how he likes to jackup shots, Lance is more of a team player.
                    And this is why it is impossible to have a real discussion. "Danny can't pass the ball" Thats not true. Anyone who has a clue about basketball knows thats not true. He's not playing in JOB's offense. He's playing in Vogel's offense. Danny has no problem passing the ball, never has. As soon as Vogel took over his FGA's went down. And that was before the break out of PG. Its not even about Danny changing his game. He gets to play off the ball, not be the primary focus of the defense, and is playing with all star level players, not Troy Murphy. These guys make Danny's game easier.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      We don't have a number of ball handlers in the starting lineup I don't know were are you getting that from, Hill is average and neither West/Roy are ball handlers, in reality Paul George is the only one that does a decent job at handling the ball but as we know he turns the ball over a lot, so at the end of the day you still need Lance in the starting unit.

                      By the way I thought we knew this 2 years ago when everybody kept saying that we needed a ball handler, some people even wanted Suckleavy back because of this.
                      George Hill can handle the ball just fine. Between Hill and PG, the starting unit is more than ok. Quite frankly I don't want anyone else really handling the ball when Hill and George are on the court together. There is no need.

                      2 years ago PG couldn't dribble. Dont even make the comparison.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I generally get what you're saying. But playoff games tend to be won by the starters. Now you certainly need a better bench than the one the Pacers trotted out last year, but in general starters decide playoff games. That's why we went as far as we did last year. So you also have to put a value on being a starter versus being a bench player. If the starting lineup is better with one player than the other, then it should be weighed more heavily.

                        But yeah, we both agree that this is an extremely theoretical conversation.
                        How many playoff games have OKC James Harden and Manu Ginobili won for their teams? A lot of them. 6th men of this kind may not start technicality but they are starters in reality. They play starter minutes, they play a lot with the starters and they are on the court to finish the game.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          I generally get what you're saying. But playoff games tend to be won by the starters. Now you certainly need a better bench than the one the Pacers trotted out last year, but in general starters decide playoff games. That's why we went as far as we did last year. So you also have to put a value on being a starter versus being a bench player. If the starting lineup is better with one player than the other, then it should be weighed more heavily.

                          But yeah, we both agree that this is an extremely theoretical conversation.
                          I think the last two seasons is proof that a bench is very important. See how the last two years our starters have beat the Heat's starters, even dominated, but our bench got dominated by even more both years causing us to lose. If we have Danny last year in all odds we go to the finals.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            How many playoff games have OKC James Harden and Manu Ginobili won for their teams? A lot of them. 6th men of this kind may not start technicality but they are starters in reality. They play starter minutes, they play a lot with the starters and they are on the court to finish the game.
                            You don't get it. Even though literally everybody agrees that the best thing for Lance to do is be a primary ballhandler AND it's quite apparent Vogel isn't going to let him do it with the starters AND everybody agrees that it's who finishes and not who starts that really matters, the best thing for our team is if Lance starts. That way, Lance can start the game with the starters to build chemistry, stay out there with the bench so he can be a handler, and finish with the starters because that's how you win ballgames.

                            Also, all of this has to do with purely basketball reasons and has absolutely nothing to do with the competition being between my favorite player on the team and either the guy I don't like because he reminds me of Jim O'Brien or the guy who plays point guard but isn't a pure point guard.
                            Last edited by aamcguy; 11-03-2013, 02:01 AM.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


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

                              I think I'm done with this whole Lance vs. Granger thing period. It's a good discussion and very important for our team, but it is very difficult to hold a proper discussion when people switch back and forth between arguing what they would do with the roster if they had full control of all decisions and arguing what should be done given what Frank Vogel actually likes to do with certain combinations. There's common ground all over the place, but it seems like whenever you try to agree with somebody on a particular point, they instantly qualify it with something that Vogel isn't prone to actually doing.

                              Absolutely everybody here likes Lance, but it's pretty clear there are a lot of people that don't like Granger. And that means any situation in which Granger "wins" in any way, shape, or form must be trod on.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


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

                                The biggest issue I saw in the playoffs last year was that GH struggles against tough, playoff pressure 'D'. He has a relatively weak handle for a PG. Besides the occaisonal turnover (which are a type that almost always lead to points) the big issue is that because he struggles advancing the ball, they start their offensive sets late. That is a killer for a team wanting to play inside - out. PG is certainly improving as a ball handler, but Im not ready to put that responsibility on him, especially considering (assuming they meet Miami again) he would have to do it against the best player on the planet. Lance has a much more advanced handle, would be advancing against an aging Wade, and is simply the best player the Pacers have at pushing the ball. Pushing the ball and getting early offense before the D is set is huge against great defensive teams like Miami and Chicago - prmarily their starting lineups.

                                I'm curious how much better some of you think Lance will play given more minutes with the bench. I mean, he's playing pretty damn good now. He's 2nd on the team in points, rebounds, and assists. He's leading the team in minutes. What is it you expect from moving him to the bench? 1st in those categories? I just don't get it. People talk like it will have no effect on the starters, but will supercharge the bench. That's BS. You can't subtract someone contributing is so many different ways and not affect the starting lineup. Especially when's its two players as different as DG and Lance. If you think Lance will strengthen the bench, fine - but don't pretend it won't change the dynamics of a starting lineup that played great last year and has looked even better to start this season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X