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 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.
    Well, Danny is a poor passer and ball handler, is stationary on the offensive end unless a play is drawn up for him, hinders the development and improvement of George/Stephenson (as proven last year and so far this year), can't consistently hit a jump shot, and struggles to play within the flow of the offense, make wise basketball decisions, or take uncontested shots. Granger's return would ultimately be a positive as he's a quality player, but the Pacers are and will continue to be unquestionably better without him in the starting unit detracting from Paul George, our on and off ball movement, and our interior play.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
      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"?
      I don't want to take any minutes away from Lance and PG. I just don't want to see them injured because we're playing them 40 MPG. I don't want us to become like Thibs' Bulls. I don't want PG end up like Deng playing 39 MPG for 3 consecutive years.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


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

        The more I think about Lance's situation, the more I am thankful that he plays alongside. George Hill. They really do complement each other.

        With that said, I'm fine with Lance as a SG. While I have imagined that he could be an amazing PG, I think with George Hill he has enough opportunities to initiate the offense. Perhaps at one point with more experience he can be a PG, but I don't think now is the time. I'm not even sure if that time will come. I think teams would go small on us and it could end up being detrimental. So...I'm fine with Lance at SG from here on out. On the other hand, maybe we have a great pint sized, dead eye SG who can guard the other team's PG. IDK. Maybe that guy is George Hill...

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          So, he has been injured. You're saying that he should lose his spot due to injury. Am I right?
          I'm not saying he should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. It's not like I said, "He should never start again!" when he initially got hurt 12 months ago. But his absence set off a chain of events which included a young Lance Stephenson getting the opportunity to come in and produce. He played very solid last year and appears to be completely busting out right now. I'm not saying that Danny should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. All I'm saying is that his getting hurt led to a situation in which we have a 23 year old who has developed into a better player. But Granger's continued absence does factor in when he still hasn't proven that he can be a reliable player.

          Athletes do lose their spots to injuries sometimes. It sucks, but that's the nature of the beast. The most famous athlete in Indianapolis history, Peyton Manning, lost his job because of a situation that was initiated by his injury that caused him to miss a year. My saying that Danny can lose his spot to injury is hardly going out on a limb.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
            Well, Danny is a poor passer and ball handler, is stationary on the offensive end unless a play is drawn up for him, hinders the development and improvement of George/Stephenson (as proven last year and so far this year), can't consistently hit a jump shot, and struggles to play within the flow of the offense, make wise basketball decisions, or take uncontested shots. Granger's return would ultimately be a positive as he's a quality player, but the Pacers are and will continue to be unquestionably better without him in the starting unit detracting from Paul George, our on and off ball movement, and our interior play.
            You know that I don't agree with your view on Granger but that's besides the point here. Didn't Danny have those attributes when he was starting in 11-12? What has changed?

            I just want people to admit that Danny's injury is the perfect excuse for what some posters in this forum always wanted. To bench DG.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I'm not saying he should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. It's not like I said, "He should never start again!" when he initially got hurt 12 months ago. But his absence set off a chain of events which included a young Lance Stephenson getting the opportunity to come in and produce. He played very solid last year and appears to be completely busting out right now. I'm not saying that Danny should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. All I'm saying is that his getting hurt led to a situation in which we have a 23 year old who has developed into a better player. But Granger's continued absence does factor in when he still hasn't proven that he can be a reliable player.

              Athletes do lose their spots to injuries sometimes. It sucks, but that's the nature of the beast. The most famous athlete in Indianapolis history, Peyton Manning, lost his job because of a situation that was initiated by his injury that caused him to miss a year. My saying that Danny can lose his spot to injury is hardly going out on a limb.
              I just wanted you to confirm that you believe that Danny should lose his spot due to injury. Thank you very much
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


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

                One factor not mentioned here is that Granger wouldn't be scoring nearly as many points as he did when he was "the man". Not only is this team MUCH better, he will never again be the best player on the team. Not with Paul. Hibbert is clearly more valuable.

                The point is, everyone needs to forget about the seasons Granger got his numbers on bad teams. It happens all the time. A player has inflated stats because his team isn't all that good. Granger was a trooper delivering for the Pacers year after year, but that's exactly what happened. His scoring average, on fairly poor FG%, was very much inflated. At best he would average 17PPG on this team.

                Seriously, the team is so much better now. People need to readjust who Danny Granger really is because even if 100% healthy he may very well be the 4th best player on the team.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  I just wanted you to confirm that you believe that Danny should lose his spot due to injury. Thank you very much

                  I think he should lose his spot because we have a better player starting right now. The injury is what started the chain of events, though it's certainly still an important factor since the guy isn't playing.

                  If Lance wasn't on the roster and Granger was clearly the best option, then it's not like I'd be saying, "well Granger might be healthy now, but he shouldn't start since he got hurt that one time". No, I don't think he should start because we have Lance.

                  Also, calling it "Granger's spot" at this point really isn't factual. It's been Lance's spot for a year. Granger has been gone for so long that I think the statute of limitations has run out as far as calling it "his spot" is concerned.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013, 08:24 PM.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I think he should lose his spot because we have a better player starting right now. The injury is what started the chain of events, though it's certainly still an important factor since the guy isn't playing.

                    If Lance wasn't on the roster and Granger was clearly the best option, then it's not like I'd be saying, "well Granger might be healthy now, but he shouldn't start since he got hurt that one time". No, I don't think he should start because we have Lance.

                    Also, calling it "Granger's spot" at this point really isn't factual. It's been Lance's spot for a year. Granger has been gone for so long that I think the statute of limitations has run out as far as calling it "his spot" is concerned.
                    It was Granger's spot before he got injured and that's why I referred to it that way in my post. I didn't say that it's Granger's spot now.

                    We seem to circle back to a previous argument. The argument that "the better player should start". In other words, you're starting that starting does matter. Am I right? Because if yes, then that's where we disagree. Starting is nowhere near as important as finishing is.
                    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
                      It was Granger's spot before he got injured and that's why I referred to it that way in my post. I didn't say that it's Granger's spot now.

                      We seem to circle back to a previous argument. The argument that "the better player should start". In other words, you're starting that starting does matter. Am I right? Because if yes, then that's where we disagree. Starting is nowhere near as important as finishing is.
                      I'm saying that there's no reason whatsoever for the Pacers to screw with a starting lineup that has worked brilliantly for the last year and continues to get better and better.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        Starting is nowhere near as important as finishing is.
                        In reality, I think most everyone agrees with this statement. Yet when people talk about a guy starting, I hope you realize that they are also saying that the player should not be a "bench player" and that normally starters will equal finishers. Of course there are exceptions. Most starters also finish...even if not all 5 do it.

                        Comment


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

                          So a player that has been out for almost 2 years shouldn't lose his starting spot lol I can't wait for somebody else to come up with another great excuse

                          I'm glad JO is not here anymore or Nuntius would be telling us about how JO should be the starter because he never lost his starting spot lol
                          @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 Nuntius View Post
                            You know that I don't agree with your view on Granger but that's besides the point here. Didn't Danny have those attributes when he was starting in 11-12? What has changed?

                            I just want people to admit that Danny's injury is the perfect excuse for what some posters in this forum always wanted. To bench DG.
                            Well, if you were on this board at all in 11-12 and prior, you'd know I wanted Granger dealt to maximize on his "perceived" value. At this point, I believe it's actually more beneficial to have Granger and his expiring remain on the team as part of our bench, as oppose to dealing him, unless of course the perfect trade comes along that nets us an elite point guard.
                            Last edited by croz24; 11-03-2013, 08:49 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              I've agreed with most everything the Pacers have done since the day JOb was booted. I was quite pleased they jettisoned Collison and gave the reigns to George Hill. I was quite happy that Vogel stopped with that 3 pointer game Jim always failed with. When DJ and GG failed, they cleaned that up quickly. They acquired Scola and CJ Watson. They have now given a longer leash to Lance. All of this is good.

                              Now I fully expect Granger to either take the back seat and a pay cut...or be gone. Lance Stephenson is the future people. Don't fight it.

                              Comment


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

                                Lance starting to get national press. Here we go:

                                http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...acers/3420315/
                                Source: USA Today

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X