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 Sookie View Post
    I would imagine that the arguments being made here are the assumption that Danny is going to be Danny. If he's not, and Lance keeps playing at his current level than there isn't an argument.

    If he is, and Lance returns to the level he played at last season, then there isn't an argument. (or there shouldn't be..)

    If they are close, then it's debatable.
    For the record, I think Lance should finish games even if Granger comes back 100 percent. It would make more sense to bench Hill than Lance.
    "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 Nuntius View Post
      Everyone in this forum knows that the reason that you don't want Danny in the starting unit has nothing to do with basketball.
      A lot of people here don't like V. judging people's motives. I think you are wrong to judge his motive here. I think it is very possible to want Granger coming off the bench and Lance finishing games for completely basketball reasons.
      "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 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?
        These long discussions are never really very profitable unless we zero in on the real question: who finishes?

        If you think Lance should finish, if would help if you added that to your comments. Then your arguments will be received better from the pro-Lance crowd. Otherwise, all these "Granger should start" arguments feel like a Trojan Horse.
        "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 Nuntius View Post
          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.
          We can't afford him.
          "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 aamcguy View Post
            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.
            No, it has to do with who finishes games.

            Lance is arguably our second best player, and he is better than our best player five years ago for a sucky team.

            Your green comments work if you truly believe Lance should finish, but I think you've already stated a different position in a previous post.
            "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 aamcguy View Post
              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.
              I think Granger "wins" if he comes off the bench and lights it up for 20 minutes a game. What's wrong with that?
              "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 rm1369 View Post
                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.
                Thank you.
                "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 Heisenberg View Post
                  If it's a tight back and forth game I want Lance to finish. If we're down 10 with 2 minutes to go or something like that I want Danny. I honestly don't care who starts, if Danny gets healthy I'm cool with a 24/24 split between the two of em.

                  Comment


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

                    I think this thread may reach "Brandon Rush is a terrible 3 point shooter" legendary status if Lance keeps up the good work.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                      So, I'll ask again - if nothing is really changing, then what are you trying to accomplish? I have to assume that you want him to get more time (most of his time) with the bench and less with the starters. Is that correct? To me that's a role change. If that's correct, what kind of numbers are you expecting Lance to elevate to?
                      The question is: do you really want Granger to finish. That's the question to ask.
                      "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 aamcguy View Post
                        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.
                        That's not at all true. The reality is one person does not like Granger. The rest of us either want Granger or Lance to play more minutes with the starters...whether that means start and/or finish. Honestly, this is going to be a moot point. Granger isn't going to be 100% this year and if he shows he can play pretty well, he's going to find himself traded unless he will accept a big pay cut. So, best case for him...he is out of Indy. Worst case he is out of the league. Lance is a young player who will play with Paul for another decade well after Granger hangs it up.

                        Sorry, but these are the facts.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Seriously, stop making **** up. None of that is true. You could say George has changed, but reality is he is just a better version of what he was. Hibbert isn't a different player, he is just a better version of what he was. Those 4 starters are not different players, they are just this years version of the same player. Some of them might be better, but that just means there is less of a reliance on Granger. The style they play hasn't changed all that much, just a different shot distribution, and the style matches Granger's game very well as it should considering he was the main cog in its first iteration. Sure things have changed, but we aren't talking about significant changes. We are talking about adjustments that should be simple for a player with the skillset of Granger to adjust to.

                          rm1369 is right, things have changed a lot since DG played in 2011-12. In 11-12, Paul was fourth in FG attempts (Granger, West, Hibbert) with 639 attempts. Granger shot the ball 941 times, which was 302 more times than PG. West was second in FG attempts with 716, so Granger shot the ball 225 more times than the next highest player.

                          Now Paul is leading the team in FG attempts and has morphed into one of the best players in the NBA. Lance is also getting a ton of attempts. We don't need Granger to shoot the ball at a ratio that is drastically higher than the next highest player. That's just not who we are anymore. Granger is facing a significant change when he returns.

                          http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2012.html
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013, 10:29 AM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            Lance made jumpers last night, which was great, but he also made a lot of stupid passes. Don't get me wrong, I'm elated to have Lance, but he's quickly getting overrated on PD.
                            A lot? I saw two. Which is less than the number of "stupid" shots that West took, less than the number of "stupid" fouls West gave, and "a lot" less than the number of "stupid" shots that Orlando Johnson (who is quickly getting overrated on PD) took.

                            Funny how he's "quickly getting overrated" by a board that largely dismissed anything positive he did as a flash in the pan by a player who wasn't worth a single kind word or bit of credit. It's like the crow did nothing to the appetite. Just enjoy his early contributions; Vogel certainly does, as he called him the Pacers' "most efficient offensive player this year."

                            Last I checked passing is part of offense, but I'm sure your unbiased opinion is more knowledgeable than the coach's.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post

                              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.
                              Most of us like Granger and appreciate what he has given to the Pacers over the years. I feel sorry for him that his physical prime coincided with the likes of Jim O'Brien, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, etc. He drew the short straw in that sense. He has always represented the franchise with class and was certainly a nice personality to have after the disastrous O'Neal/Artest era. Also, it's certainly a shame that he had to go through such a bad injury at the relatively young age of 30.

                              I'm sure that people read my posts and think that I'm a "Granger hater", but that's just not true. That being said, I see a team that has been an elite team for the last year without any contribution from Granger. I see a team with a budding young talent in Lance who nicely complements our superstar Paul George. I see a starting lineup that is clearly working and has a nice vibe to it, and I see Lance's skill set being a major reason for that. I think that our starting lineup's main advantage is its physical defensive identity, and it's certainly legitimate to think that replacing Lance with Granger is a clear downgrade in that department. This is a starting lineup that clearly works and just seems to get better with every game.

                              You might think that those of us who want Lance to start "don't like Granger", but I can just as easily say that many who want Granger to start have their mind set on Granger starting at all costs because of who he is, regardless of how well Lance plays.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013, 10:28 AM.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                Don't get me wrong, I'm elated to have Lance, but he's quickly getting overrated on PD.
                                As it always is - the truth lies somewhere inbetween. The Lance argument. The Danny argument. The Lance/Danny argument. All have their supporters, all have their detractors. Time will tell what happens in the next 4 months or so. We'll know what we have then. It'll be fun to revisit this thread (and many others) and see where it all falls. Some people will appear to be brilliant. Others will appear to be cluelsss. I say 'appear' because none of us can forsee what's going to happen on the court and 99.9% of the important matters have yet to play out.

                                I love this game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X