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 Sollozzo View Post
    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
    Change in shot distribution is not a change in style.

    Comment


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

      At this point anyone in the "DG should start" camp can't have much of a point because Lance has been knocking down open shots at a blistering clip through three games. Obviously he won't shoot this hot all year, but if he's playing close to this level throughout the yr, then it would be hard to have DG come in and take his spot with the starters. Obviously a healthy Granger is a great scoring weapon, but it's gotta be about the team.

      Now I'm not jumping on the Lance is an all star bandwagon by any means. I still think he's wildly overrated by a few on here. And I want to see him do well against good teams and not the three decent teams who continue to leave him wide open for 3's all game.

      But he is doing very well and if the team has one of the best records in the league by the time DG comes back, it may truly be best to have Danny play with the bench and go from there. I still believe a healthy Granger is the best scorer on the team, but he has to prove to be healthy before anything.

      Edit: I still believe Lance could be a distributor in the second unit still, but I think he can still do that by being the first sub out (for Danny) and coming back in during the 2nd qt playing WITH Danny.

      Right now the starter I'm worried about is D.West. Dude looks old and out of it out there.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-03-2013, 01:15 PM.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
        CableKC - I take it you are not of the opinion that GH struggled in the playoffs advancing the ball against Miami's pressure D? If that's the case, then I disagree, but at least understand your view on Lance. I happen to think it was a huge issue at times and that's why I believe Lance should be out there with the starters. I agree they are less dependent on individual shot creation, but that type of offense typically requires time to operate and I feel they were often robbed of that time by GHs "struggles" with advancing the ball.

        Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting the ball was taken from him a lot (although it was on occasion) I'm suggesting that he has to work harder than most PGs to advance the ball because he doesn't have that "ball on a string" type handle that allows him to disregard the pressure. He has to be very deliberate and that takes time. Or you give him help and without Lance that help comes from PG. I love PG and he's improving, but I don't want him asked to consistently bring the ball up against Lebron in the playoffs.

        I honestly don't see the dynamic being much different than the Lebron / Wade one (obviously lance isn't that of player yet). Both players are capable of initiating the offense and you rarely see the team not have one of them on the floor at all times. The offense can then be initiated by either of them or the "pg" that is in with them. No need to disrupt the starters to have a creator on the floor with the bench. Especially when the rotation tightens come playoff time.
        I'm not "basketball saavy" enough to know how well GH handled the ball pressure against Miami ( or any elite level Team ) compared to Lance or PG24.....so I can't really answer that. Are we talking about "night and day" when it comes to GH bringing up the ball compared to when Lance or PG bringing up the ball?

        From the sounds of what you are saying....he didn't handle it too well...but I'm guessing that GH bringing up the ball under pressure isn't as bad as Cabbages bring up the ball where it justified taking the ball completely out of GHs hands when bringing the ball up.

        But one of the growing discussions that we are having now ( outside of the whole "Lance Vs. Granger" argument ) is the "Lance Vs. GH" discussion that has emerged.

        Overall, I have ZERO problems with Starting and Closing games with GH and leaving things the way they are when it comes GH. He completely fits the way that Vogel runs the offense and who Bird wants on the floor to close games ( Veteran experience, defense and a cold-blooded killer mentality that has "ice" in his veins ).

        The question(s)....as many have pointed out...boils down to:

        1 ) Should Lance or Granger Start?
        2 ) Should Lance or Granger Finish?
        3 ) Should Lance or Granger play the majority of their minutes with the Starters or 2nd Unit?

        In regards to Question 1, I could care less who Starts since both will get Starter Minutes even if one comes off the bench ( assuming, of course that Granger is healthy ). But if having Lance play the majority of his minutes with the 2nd Unit translates into him not Starting ( but still getting Starter minutes AND finishing games ), then I am okay with that.

        In regards to Question 2, I am comfortable with saying that Lance should Finish the game.

        In regards to Question 3, for the various reasons I mentioned before....I think that Lance should play the majority of his minutes ( maybe a 18 / 12 split ) with the 2nd Unit ( since this allows Vogel to put the ball in Lance's hands more often ) while closing out the game with Starters.
        Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013, 01:29 PM.
        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 Pacergeek View Post
          The Granger/Lance debate is getting more hilarious each day. Stephenson is an all-star THIS YEAR. Granger, even at 100%, is not an all star. You don't cut out minuets from your all-star player to accommodate a role player coming back from injury EVER!!!
          Lance may be the better Player now and will likely improve this year compared to last....but when did Lance become and ALL-STAR?

          Also....I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Lance gets his minutes cut at the expense of Granger getting more minutes....any minutes that Granger gets ( when he returns ) would be at the expense of every Player behind PG/Lance/GH/West/Hibbert.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


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

            Granger and Lance style differ significantly. Granger coming off the Bench would suffer significantly. Where as alot of Lances great moments have come when he is playing with the Bench unit already this year. I believe his amazing 4th quarter last night was with the Bench unit.

            Lance is star type player. Let him play with the bench unit and be the go to guy. Let Granger play with the Starters and compliment Georges go to status.

            Comment


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

              That's probably the one big reason that comes to mind why I might still prefer Danny starting over Lance, even if Lance is shooting this well: Both would fit well with the other starters, but I think Lance helps the bench crew more than Danny could.

              To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                That's probably the one big reason that comes to mind why I might still prefer Danny starting over Lance, even if Lance is shooting this well: Both would fit well with the other starters, but I think Lance helps the bench crew more than Danny could.

                To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?
                People simply equate "Starting" with "Whose the better player".

                That is why I answer the question of "Who should Start?" with "I could care less as long as both get Starter-like minutes and Lance finishes the game".

                Overall, in a vacuum....meaning that we are to ignore injury history and simply compare what the Player bring to the floor.....I'd say that both Lance and Granger are on the same level that brings a different skillset to the table with Lance having an "upward trajectory" whereas Granger is heading in an "downward trajectory". But because we can't ignore factors like injury history and lack of regular season Playing time into a Player like Granger....it's safe to say that Lance is considered the better Player now and for the immediate future.

                When we discuss whether Lance or Granger should "start" with GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( all Players that are excellent at really good ball movement, oncourt awareness and finding cutters to the basket ), I agree with what you are saying, Lance maybe a better influence ( and overall a better option ) to play more minutes with the 2nd unit. Given the way that this Team is run and the importance of running an efficient AND effective 2nd unit ( this isn't critical but important IMHO ); Lance maybe the better Player than Granger, but the 2nd Unit may better benefit ( and therefore the overall Team as a whole ) with Lance in their lineup than with Granger.

                All of you focus in on the "Who should Start and therefore that translates into whose the better Player" discussion, when ( in the end )....the real question is "What is the 5 Players you want on the floor when it comes down to crunch time?" is all that really matters. The only times that I may want Granger to finish/close out a game is if we need Foul shooters on the floor ( Lance is a terrible FT shooter at times....which I assume that he can work on next summer ) or if Granger is simply on fire. But for the rest of the 98% of the time.....I want Lance ( not Granger ) to finish the game with PG/GH/West/Hibbert.
                Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013, 02:34 PM.
                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 Hicks View Post

                  To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?
                  Fair statement. Although I'd say its also fair to say those that believe DG will pickup where he left off in 2011 - 2012 should wait until he can get and stay on the court before wanting to bench someone that's doing it now. JMO of course.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                    Fair statement. Although I'd say its also fair to say those that believe DG will pickup where he left off in 2011 - 2012 should wait until he can get and stay on the court before wanting to bench someone that's doing it now. JMO of course.
                    I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."
                      Same here...although I wish that Granger could come anywhere close to how he was prior to his year off....I'm realistic enough to believe that he can ( at best ) he can simply contribute like any other 6th Man can contribute.
                      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 Hicks View Post
                        I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."
                        Opening this thread is for sure proving it....
                        @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 Hicks View Post
                          I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."
                          I wasn't necessarily suggesting you or CableKC, but I was told I'm "making **** up" by suggesting we don't know what that lineup can do because PG, Roy, and DG are different players now. Not only does that comment negate the significant improvements made by PG and Roy, but it suggests DG is the same player he was.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Opening this thread is for sure proving it....
                            The purpose of this thread seems to be regarding some comparison between Lance Vs. GH at the starting PG spot...and not your favorite topic at hand...Lance Vs. Granger.
                            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 Steagles View Post
                              I have said all along I see Lance starting as a point guard one day. Another thing I'm very adamant about was what I said about Hill's contract- that it was grossly overpaid. IF Lance continues this production, I think it would be in the Pacers best interest to trade Hill, resign Lance, and start him at point. I don't know how the player movement would work, but I like Lance much better at point for the Pacers, and that's not even taking into account the ridiculous contract Hill got.
                              I'd rather trade Copeland for an Expiring than trade GH if there was a need to clear Capspace ( $3mil off the books in 2014-2015 should do it )....heck, I'd even throw in OJ as well as long as we get an Expiring Wing Player back that can do an adequate job as 10th Man in the rotation at the Wing spots. This offense requires ball movement that GH is more than capable of facilitating. I have no idea why we'd eliminate that skillset from the lineup.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013, 03:40 PM.
                              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 McKeyFan View Post
                                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.
                                I agree that it's absolutely possible to want Granger coming off the bench and Lance finishing games for completely basketball reasons. But we're talking about V. here and let's be real. This has nothing to do with Lance for him. It has to do with his dislike for Granger.

                                Am I judging his motives? Absolutely. He has given this forum enough reason to do so. Am I being unfair? Probably. But not as unfair as he has been on our players those last few years.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X