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 CableKC View Post
    I understand that Lance may be very good at passing the ball and has great court vision, but there is no one else in the Starting Lineup that is capable of doing that now?


    I have explained several times what role I want Lance to play in the lineup. If that role translates into Granger being inserted into the Starting lineup as a 4th / 5th Scoring option and making Lance a super-6th Man while improving the 2nd unit....then that's what I want for the rest of the season.

    We can simply agree to disagree.
    I thanked your post and appreciate it. I fully disagree with it though. I've posted many, many reasons why I disagree with it...while also fully understanding that view.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I understand that Lance may be very good at passing the ball and has great court vision, but there is no one else in the Starting Lineup that is capable of doing that now?


      I have explained several times what role I want Lance to play in the lineup. If that role translates into Granger being inserted into the Starting lineup as a 4th / 5th Scoring option and making Lance a super-6th Man while improving the 2nd unit....then that's what I want for the rest of the season.

      We can simply agree to disagree.
      What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
      @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 CableKC View Post
        Why can't there be an exception here like there was an exception made with the Spurs and Manu?
        Why do we need to be an exception? That's the whole point. This team is winning with Lance playing awesome ball as a starter, yet people seem to want to make this team an exception just so that we can say it's an exception.

        rm1369 brings up a brilliant point about the reversal of the roles. Say Lance had suffered an injury in the pre-season and Danny was healthy. Further, say Danny had started the season with Lance's line of 19/6.7/4.0 on 59.5% shooting. If that would have happened, people would be starting threads about how Granger was on the verge of surpassing Reggie as the greatest Pacer ever. They would have discussions on who would be there to induct Danny into the HOF. There would be pitchforks if anyone would suggest that Lance should start with Granger putting up stats like that.

        People say that Lance needs to control the ball, but he's controlling the ball plenty now. It's getting to the point that it would be completely unnecessary to mess with our starting lineup right now. At some point it starts to seem like people want Granger starting simply because they want Granger starting, regardless of how well Lance plays. Not talking to you directly Cable, but that's just the general vibe I get.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013, 10:26 PM.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
          Pick your reason:

          1) People think Granger will return to form
          2) People think stretching the floor to free Hibbert and/or West is more important than many other things Lance does...including stretch the floor.
          3) People are closet Lance lovers. They want to see him run wild with the bench...knowing he will have the "ball in his hands"...whatever that means.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            So, when "it matters" Lance will be in there huh? Ok, we are making progress. Now I need to know why in the world you want him to be 6th man.

            I think I know the answer...at least for some people. They want Granger to stretch the floor and Lance to create off the bench. If so, that isn't factoring in A LOT of stuff and I completely disagree with it. I understand it fully though...
            What progress are we making? I have answered to those same questions at least 3 times in the last 5 pages. I have bolded and underlined the most important parts of my posts. I believe that I have made myself perfectly clear and you keep asking me the same damn things. This discussion is going circles and I don't even know why. Why are you ignoring my original posts and keep asking things that I have already answered before?

            Yes, I want Lance closing games!

            I want Lance to be the 6th man because this allows us to have a constant offensive flow from our wing position. Staggering the minutes of our two primary shot creators (Lance and Paul George) will allow us to get higher quality shots at all times. It also enables us to do this without running both of them into the ground and keeping them fresh.

            I want to compliment our two bigs with great spot up shooters. We already know that Paul George and George Hill are great spot up shooters. I don't care if that 3rd shooter is called Lance Stephenson, Danny Granger or Harry the Martian. I just want that 5th starter to be a great spot up shooter.

            I hold the belief that Larry Bird will do anything in his power to keep Lance this summer.

            I think that this sums up my posts. I honestly hate bolding so much text but I'm tired of writing the same things over and over again and having people ignore them every time.

            I really hope that I made myself clear.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
              Because it will turn a good bench to a super amazing bench.
              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
                Because it will turn a good bench to a super amazing bench.
                So would putting Paul George or Roy Hibbert on the bench.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  rm1369 brings up a brilliant point about the reversal of the roles. Say Lance had suffered an injury in the pre-season and Danny was healthy. Further, say Danny had started the season with Lance's line of 19/6.7/4.0 on 59.5% shooting. If that would have happened, people would be starting threads about how Granger was on the verge of surpassing Reggie as the greatest Pacer ever. They would have discussions on who would be there to induct Danny into the HOF. There would be pitchforks if anyone would suggest that Lance should start with Granger putting up stats like that.
                  Would Granger make our bench much, much better like Lance does in this case? If yes, then I would want him to become the 6th man.

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  People say that Lance needs to control the ball, but he's controlling the ball plenty now. It's getting to the point that it would be completely unnecessary to mess with our starting lineup right now. At some point it starts to seem like people want Granger starting simply because they want Granger starting, regardless of how well Lance plays. Not talking to you directly Cable, but that's just the general vibe I get.
                  It's also starting to think that some people want Granger on the bench simply because they want Granger on the bench. Not talking to you directly Sollozzo, but that's just the general vibe I get.
                  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
                    Would Granger make our bench much, much better like Lance does in this case? If yes, then I would want him to become the 6th man.
                    There is plenty of opportunity for Lance to play with both the starters and the bench, as the first three games have shown. Lance has shown that he has positive qualities to add to both. He can make bench players better while still starting the first curcial minutes of the game. As the playoffs showed us, the first few minutes of a game are crucial. It's best that the Pacers continue to roll with what has worked.

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    It's also starting to think that some people want Granger on the bench simply because they want Granger on the bench. Not talking to you directly Sollozzo, but that's just the general vibe I get.
                    The difference is that those who want Lance as a starter base their opinions off of the games that have been played for the past year, while those who want Granger to start are completely living in a "what if" world.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
                      Why did Pop make Manu the sixth man? Why was Harden the sixth man in OKC? Because sometimes it makes more sense for the team. Thats why.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        So would putting Paul George or Roy Hibbert on the bench.
                        Not really. Putting Roy on the bench wouldn't work that well. Roy needs spacing to get to work and our bench's shooting isn't as good as the shooting of our starting line-up. That would lead to more double teams for Roy.

                        I guess that putting Paul George on the bench could have a similar result but we would lose our lock-down defender in the starting unit.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Why did Pop make Manu the sixth man? Why was Harden the sixth man in OKC? Because sometimes it makes more sense for the team. Thats why.
                          Neither of those teams are the Pacers and neither of those players are Lance/Granger. Therefore, those examples have no value to our situation. Also, both of those teams had PG's (Westbrook, Parker) who could be relied on to completely control the ball. Hill has weaknesses with that at time and Lance aids with that. Therefore, Lance needs to start.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            Would Granger make our bench much, much better like Lance does in this case? If yes, then I would want him to become the 6th man.



                            It's also starting to think that some people want Granger on the bench simply because they want Granger on the bench. Not talking to you directly Sollozzo, but that's just the general vibe I get.
                            It's been said several times you can have that without benching Lance, but you think that will somehow lead to them accidentally playing Lance and PG 40 mins. I honestly don't know what to say to that. I can only assume you want DG starting and that's that. How do you accidentally play someone 40 mins per? Whatever.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Pick your reason:

                              1) People think Granger will return to form
                              2) People think stretching the floor to free Hibbert and/or West is more important than many other things Lance does...including stretch the floor.
                              3) People are closet Lance lovers. They want to see him run wild with the bench...knowing he will have the "ball in his hands"...whatever that means.
                              4)Some people have a mancrush on Danny Granger.

                              5)Some people have been proven wrong and still don't want to admit it.

                              6) Some people still hate Lance for something he did 3 years ago.
                              @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 Sollozzo View Post
                                There is plenty of opportunity for Lance to play with both the starters and the bench, as the first three games have shown. Lance has shown that he has positive qualities to add to both. He can make bench players better while still starting the first curcial minutes of the game. As the playoffs showed us, the first few minutes of a game are crucial. It's best that the Pacers continue to roll with what has worked.
                                As I have already said twice to you if Lance keeps this up then I'm extremely glad that he is used the way he is. I never said that Lance doesn't have positive qualities to add to both units. I have made pretty clear that I believe that Lance is an amazing player.

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                The difference is that those who want Lance as a starter base their opinions off of the games that have been played for the past year, while those who want Granger to start are completely living in a "what if" world.
                                Do you know what is the issue? I just don't see those comments as pro-Lance comments. McKeyFan who has been the most outspoken supporter of the "Free Lance" movement has agreed that the idea of Lance coming off the bench, being a super 6th man and closing games has merit. The only posters who have been 100% against this idea without seeing any merit whatsoever in it are the same posters that used to criticize Granger any chance they got in the past and wanted to see him traded. Is this a coincidence? I really don't think so..
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X