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 Pacergeek View Post
    It was his first year he got minutes every game. His first two years, he rarely got to play. I consider last year Lance's rookie season.
    You get better in the NBA during the offseason. Lance had already had the benefit of 3 years of NBA coaching and 3 NBA training camp. Not to mention getting paid to play thus freeing him from other concerns.

    I hate this mindset with players. Just because a player does see PT doesn't mean they are stunted. They are still freed up to practice all they want without having to worry about school. In Lances case the reason he didn't play was because he wasn't playing well enough to get PT. It makes no sense to wait to call somebodys rookie year the year in which they are good enough to demand PT.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      That's the point. One of Lance and PG should be on the floor at all times. The easiest way to do that without running one of the two into the ground is to start one of the two off the bench. Have you seen what Vogel has been doing in those first 3 games? Lance is the first player to be subbed out and PG plays the whole first quarter. Then Lance comes back in when PG comes out and both of them end the half together. Vogel is trying to have one of them out there at all possible times.
      PG and Lance have averaged 35.3 and 36.3 mins per game respectively. PG averaged 37.6 last year - I wouldn't suggest he was "ran into the ground". 36.3 mins per game would have put Lance at 21st in mpg last year. In a group with a lot of good YOUNG players. I don't see that as running him into the ground. How many minutes are you wanting to take away from Lance and PG to keep from "running them into the ground"?

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        The bottomline is that we are not fully utilizing Lance his best skill ( creating for others )
        Ok lets see the Pacers are 3-0 and Lance is averaging almost 20 points 7 rebounds 4 assists per game while shooting close to 60% from anywhere, seriously how higher you want his numbers to go if he goes to the bench?

        I guess I'm glad we don't have Lebron in our team because we all know how much he kills it with the bench when he is playing close to 48 minutes a game during the playoffs.
        @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 rm1369 View Post
          There is absolutely no reason to not have PG or Lance on the floor with the bench. A combination of Watson / Lance or PG/ DG / Scola / Mahimi should be a pretty damn good unit (assuming Granger is good enough to consider starting over DG) and easily obtainable without moving Lance to the bench. It also: puts what you consider the best lineup on the floor against the other teams best lineup for the first 7-8 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters and keeps the team from being yoyo'd if Danny has lingering healthy issues. I still don't understand why Lance has to come off the bench to have have an effective bench unit. Lance comes out for a couple mins as you start to bring in the bench, while PG continues to play. You then switch Lance and PG for several minutes until the starters come back in. What am I missing?

          The only issue is if you want to do hockey line type substitutions - which I am totally against. All five starters shouldn't be off the court at the same time.
          Can we get past this whole notion of who Starts and who comes off the bench?

          To me, it's irrelevant when both Granger and Lance will get the same amount of minutes as long as we acknowledge that Lance will be the guy that finishes the game or is on the floor during crunchtime.

          If Lance plays the majority of his minutes with the 2nd unit ( as I suggested before, maybe some split of 18 mpg with the 2nd unit and 12 mpg with PG/GH/West/Hibbert ), then he will likely be the 1st Player off the bench unless Lance starts and GH, PG, West and Hibbert. But if there is a way for Lance to Start but play the majority of his minutes with the 2nd Unit....that is fine ( how that works from a rotation POV...I have no clue ).

          My whole point is that I want Lance to play with the 2nd unit for the various reasons I mentioned. Whether Lance is Starting or if he is the 6th Man coming off the bench doesn't matter to me, I just care about who plays the majority of his minutes with....the 2nd unit.
          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 CableKC View Post
            Can we get past this whole notion of who Starts and who comes off the bench?

            To me, it's irrelevant when both Granger and Lance will get the same amount of minutes as long as we acknowledge that Lance will be the guy that finishes the game or is on the floor during crunchtime.

            If Lance plays the majority of his minutes with the 2nd unit ( as I suggested before, maybe some split of 18 mpg with the 2nd unit and 12 mpg with PG/GH/West/Hibbert ), then he will likely be the 1st Player off the bench unless Lance starts and GH, PG, West and Hibbert. But if there is a way for Lance to Start but play the majority of his minutes with the 2nd Unit....that is fine ( how that works from a rotation POV...I have no clue ).

            My whole point is that I want Lance to play with the 2nd unit for the various reasons I mentioned. Whether Lance is Starting or if he is the 6th Man coming off the bench doesn't matter to me, I just care about who plays the majority of his minutes with....the 2nd unit.
            You somehow keep saying it doesn't matter who starts - just as long as Lance don't. I don't get past it because I think it does matter. Not in the sense that someone "deserves" it, but because I want my best unit playing against the other teams best unit. Your suggestion gives the team at least 14 mins a night against the other teams #1 unit without playing its best unit. That is why it makes a difference. I somewhat agree with your premise that you need an additional creator on the floor with the reserves besides Watson, but I'm saying that is very easily obtainable without downgrading the team for 14 mins against the other teams best unit. It just doesn't have to be Lance - it can be either Lance or PG.

            EDIT: I also disagree that DG can or should play the same minutes as Lance. Lance can easily handle the 35 -36 mins he's playing now. There is no way DG will average that amount IMO. 28 - 30 mins should be DGs max at this point IMO.
            Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013, 05:40 PM.

            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!!!
              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Specially if you are thinking about starting a guy who's fans keep making excuses that "he always starts slow" shooting about .300 for months while jacking up as many shots he can in the process.

              Note that I'm not even talking about his D that we all know is not that great even when he was healthy (he is not healthy).
              Right. Nothing to do with disliking a certain player
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                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.
                Agreed. That's why I'm happy with how things are at the moment. Lance has been great for us in both capacities.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


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

                  Here is my suggested mins breakdown:

                  GH - 32
                  LS - 35
                  PG - 35
                  DW - 28
                  RH - 28

                  CW - 16
                  DG - 30
                  Scola - 16
                  IM - 20

                  If there is anyone who's minutes you watch during the regular season its DW - lower him to 28. DG and Scola should be able to pickup the extra minutes. The starters get roughly the first and last 7 mins of each half together (28 mins). One of PG and Lance are always on the court. The primary bench unit is Watson / either PG or Lance / DG / Scola / Mahinmi. They get roughly 16 mins together, with the remaining mins being some combination of players - I hate wholesale substitutions.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Handling the ball is important, but it's still just one aspect of the game. Who shoots is still pretty important. Never again will Danny get 200 more shot attempts than the next highest player like he did in 2011-12. Never again will he shoot the ball 300 more times than PG. My point was that Danny's role with the team will be very different than it was in 11-12 when he last played.
                    Creating the play is more important than who is shooting the ball. I don't care about who is shooting the ball as much as I care about who is creating that shot.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


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

                      Big issue with playing any player similar to Lance at the point, is you take away from some of their greatest strengths. Lance getting time at point takes away from his ability to slash or attack the offensive glass, as one of a point guards primary responsibilities is transition defense. Lance is right where he needs to be as our starting shooting guard.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                        The shots were brought up as an indication that you can't just look at the 2011 lineup and say everything will operate the same. It won't and shouldn't. It's especially a consideration for DG because he became a volume shooter. Any suggestion that that isn't a concern for his reintegration into the starting lineup is naive, IMO. Players mentality is hugely effected by touches etc. That's a big part of chemistry. I'm on record as saying I have concerns about Lances reverting back to a ball dominate guard if that is what he is asked to do for the team. Some have agreed with that concern - and I believe you did as well. The mentality to shoot isn't much different, IMO.

                        Are you suggesting you wouldn't have a concern if the Pacers lost a couple games where Lance or GH lead the team in shot attempts instead of PG?
                        I think that you got the whole "same" argument a bit wrong. I don't think that aamcguy was saying that everything will operate the same. He said something very, very simple. The line-up still consists of the same players as it did in 2011. Paul George, Roy Hibbert, David West and George Hill. Isn't this the truth?

                        Yes, Paul George and Roy Hibbert are vastly improved. No, the shot distribution will not be the same. No one argues that the shot distribution should be the same as in 2011.

                        Personally, I believe that Danny can be a very good 5th option in the starting line-up due to his perimeter shooting. I don't want him to be 1st in shot attempts but then again I have never cared about who is shooting the ball. If a guy is open I want him to take that shot. It's that simple.

                        And to answer your question. If Lance and GH were open then I'd have no problem if they shot more than PG.
                        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
                          What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?
                          That's a very good question. You know, someone could similarly wonder "What has Danny done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?" as well.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            That's a very good question. You know, someone could similarly wonder "What has Danny done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?" as well.
                            For starters:

                            - Hasn't played consistent basketball since May 2012. He couldn't even make it out of pre-season without getting hurt.

                            - Team looks better than ever without him and made Game 7 of the ECF's.

                            - Has been replaced in the lineup by a budding young talent who is putting up freakishly good numbers through 3 games and seems to fit perfectly with the other four starters.


                            It's not what Danny's done, it's what he hasn't done......

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                              There is absolutely no reason to not have PG or Lance on the floor with the bench. A combination of Watson / Lance or PG/ DG / Scola / Mahimi should be a pretty damn good unit (assuming Granger is good enough to consider starting over Lance) and easily obtainable without moving Lance to the bench. It also: puts what you consider the best lineup on the floor against the other teams best lineup for the first 7-8 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters and keeps the team from being yoyo'd if Danny has lingering healthy issues. I still don't understand why Lance has to come off the bench to have have an effective bench unit. Lance comes out for a couple mins as you start to bring in the bench, while PG continues to play. You then switch Lance and PG for several minutes until the starters come back in. What am I missing?
                              This can happen but it risks having Lance or PG play more than 38 minutes and thus running them into the ground.
                              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
                                For starters:

                                - Hasn't played consistent basketball since May 2012. He couldn't even make it out of pre-season without getting hurt.

                                - Team looks better than ever without him and made Game 7 of the ECF's.

                                - Has been replaced in the lineup by a budding young talent who is putting up freakishly good numbers through 3 games and seems to fit perfectly with the other four starters.


                                It's not what Danny's done, it's what he hasn't done......
                                So, he has been injured. You're saying that he should lose his spot due to injury. Am I right?
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X