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

  • #61
    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by RobRoy317 View Post
    Ahhh good times people STILL talking about Danny starting over Stephenson. I wonder if when I'm like 95 I will randomly go on here and STILL see people talking about how he should of started over Lance still. #1 defense in the NBA last year...yep, let's just change that by switching Born Ready with Old Man Granger and hope for the best.

    Like, let me pull an Allen Iverson here - we're talking about changing up the number one defense here. We are undergoing a second season without Granger in the lineup, the Pacers got within one game of the Finals, and people actually have the ****ing nerve to say we should just say **** IT LET'S SWITCH UP THE STARTING UNIT. Sorry, as AI says, "Look, it's funny to me too." But we're talking about dissembling a hardcore lineup here man. I mean how silly is that?? We're talking about moving Hill to shooting guard, putting Lance at point, etc. Hey, did you guys know that Vogel is a mother****ing knowledgable coach? I think he knows what the hell he is doing. I mean we were within one game of the finals and we are talking about trading our starting point guard that helped us earn the title of being the #1 defensive team in the NBA.

    This is worse than moving Halloween to November 1st.
    It's funny you should bring that up, because without his calf injury Granger would be starting right now as per Coach Vogel. But this thread isn't really talking about Lance starting over Granger or vice versa, it's been a conversation about Lance at the PG spot. Who in this thread is straying far enough off topic so far to make it Granger vs Lance?
    Last edited by aamcguy; 10-30-2013, 08:06 PM.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
      It's funny you should bring that up, because without his calf injury Granger would be starting right now as per Coach Vogel. But this thread isn't really talking about Lance starting over Granger or vice versa, it's been a conversation about Lance at the PG spot. Who in this thread is straying far enough off topic so far to make it Granger vs Lance?
      That is my point, is that AFTER the calf injury, I'm still seeing stuff about it. I am seeing people talk about Danny coming back into the lineup as a starter in the coming months. Literally in this thread I'm reading people talking about wanting to see a GH, PG, DG, DW & RH starting lineup, about how Lance and George should swap positions, etc.

      And hey, PD guidelines implies not to single out anyone out so I can't help you there. I'm not calling out anyone specific, really, I just can't believe after a year of Danny struggling with injuries I am STILL seeing people wanting him in the starting lineup.

      You're right, it IS funny I brought that up - because Danny DOES have a calf injury, brah. IF Danny had a calf injury? He 100% does have a calf injury. So why are you bringing up hypothetical situations in which he doesn't?
      "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.
        Nowhere does it say STARTING lineup. Just a lineup of these 5 players together.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          Nowhere does it say STARTING lineup. Just a lineup of these 5 players together.
          If we're going to nitpick one single point of my multi-layered argument than I might as well shut down my laptop and return it to Best Buy. What I said about Lance and G3 still stands.
          "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I'm trying to tread lightly here, but what recent evidence shows that Granger is a better player than George Hill? I can't think of any.
            Seriously?

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.
              I think we have some common ground here as long as it's enough ball handlers. I'm not entirely convinced Stephenson can handle double teams and pressure. I know Danny isn't going to help there. I would expect Paul to turn the ball over too much.

              I do think George Hill is the best at protecting the basketball...and to have at least one player who can do that is critical.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                IF Lance continues to demonstrate improved decision-making with the ball in his hands.

                IF Lance can adequately guard the position.

                IF Lance proves to be more consistent than last season.

                IF, and this is the biggest question mark to me, Lance shows more growth in regards to his maturity....
                A couple questions for you.

                How do the first and last IF's really differ? Also, how did he fair by your key measurements tonight? 8 boards, 16 points, best FG% on team...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Seriously?
                  Yes, seriously. I think that George Hill is easily a better player than Danny Granger right now and I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

                  There's simply no recent evidence to suggest otherwise. George Hill is a clutch young PG whose presence since becoming a starter has been a major reason for our success. We all saw how poor we looked without him in Game 5 against New York last year. What evidence is there to show that Granger is better than Hill right now? He shot 30 something percent in the pre-season and hasn't played consistent ball in a year and a half. I know that it's just pre-season, but he didn't look like a guy who should even be the fourth or fifth option on a team. George Hill averaged a comfortable 14 PPG last season and is capable of nights like tonight where he takes over with clutch plays. How do we know that Granger can do that right now? We haven't seen it in a long long time. Hill starting definitely helps us maximize our offensive potential.

                  I know that people will probably read my post and get ticked off that I'm being anti-DG, but this thread was started on the premise that Hill should possibly be benched for Granger in the future. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm definitely going to give my input on who I think is the better player.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    I like how it is now. Hill and Lance are both guards basically. They both create, they both play off the ball.

                    We have two guards more than a 1 and 2 guard to me.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      A couple questions for you.

                      How do the first and last IF's really differ? Also, how did he fair by your key measurements tonight? 8 boards, 16 points, best FG% on team...
                      The first is tactical, the latter is psychological in terms of getting T's, over-selling his injuries, acting silly towards opponents to where it becomes a negative, whatever else like that.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Yes, seriously. I think that George Hill is easily a better player than Danny Granger right now and I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

                        There's simply no recent evidence to suggest otherwise. George Hill is a clutch young PG whose presence since becoming a starter has been a major reason for our success. We all saw how poor we looked without him in Game 5 against New York last year. What evidence is there to show that Granger is better than Hill right now? He shot 30 something percent in the pre-season and hasn't played consistent ball in a year and a half. I know that it's just pre-season, but he didn't look like a guy who should even be the fourth or fifth option on a team. George Hill averaged a comfortable 14 PPG last season and is capable of nights like tonight where he takes over with clutch plays. How do we know that Granger can do that right now? We haven't seen it in a long long time. Hill starting definitely helps us maximize our offensive potential.

                        I know that people will probably read my post and get ticked off that I'm being anti-DG, but this thread was started on the premise that Hill should possibly be benched for Granger in the future. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm definitely going to give my input on who I think is the better player.
                        I mean, of course there's 'no recent evidence' given the circumstances.

                        Do I really need to say that my assumption is tied with the assumption that Danny returns to form?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          The first is tactical, the latter is psychological in terms of getting T's, over-selling his injuries, acting silly towards opponents to where it becomes a negative, whatever else like that.
                          Do you mean like this?

                          http://youtu.be/sqxHHgwYj24
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by RobRoy317 View Post
                            That is my point, is that AFTER the calf injury, I'm still seeing stuff about it. I am seeing people talk about Danny coming back into the lineup as a starter in the coming months. Literally in this thread I'm reading people talking about wanting to see a GH, PG, DG, DW & RH starting lineup, about how Lance and George should swap positions, etc.

                            And hey, PD guidelines implies not to single out anyone out so I can't help you there. I'm not calling out anyone specific, really, I just can't believe after a year of Danny struggling with injuries I am STILL seeing people wanting him in the starting lineup.

                            You're right, it IS funny I brought that up - because Danny DOES have a calf injury, brah. IF Danny had a calf injury? He 100% does have a calf injury. So why are you bringing up hypothetical situations in which he doesn't?
                            Because in the preseason he didn't, and Vogel was setting up the rotations so Lance was off the bench. No hypothetical situations, talking about what was already taking place. And you don't have to single anybody out, because I will go ahead and say that nobody was straying off topic. Your post actually was the one that really brought it up.

                            The Danny vs. Lance conversations are about which one should start on the wing. THIS discussion is about whether Lance should be our point guard, which would make the discussion Granger vs. Hill. And the main issue there would be whether you want 2 or 3 ballhandlers in that lineup. I think I would still prefer Hill to start because I don't think Lance and Paul are good enough against pressure defenses yet.

                            And formulating my response really gives me my response to the thread: I don't think Lance should be the point guard this year. I think it will take at least another year until he is consistent enough to handle the ball more often. And I think the best case scenario if ever he improves that much is to be a ball-dominant SG.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I mean, of course there's 'no recent evidence' given the circumstances.

                              Do I really need to say that my assumption is tied with the assumption that Danny returns to form?
                              That's a very big assumption that you are making there

                              I don't think that he will return to form...as in pre-injury form.....but I think that he will be able to contribute at a "6th Man" level to make a difference. He'll be able to contribute more than Chris Copeland/OJ/Solo but at most "on par" with Lance ( assuming that he's able to play about 75% of his game, of course ).

                              JMHO, of course.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                I love huge lineups, and I suspect the main reason Hicks even considers Lance as a possible starting point is simply because he's huge for a point. Size means everything defensively. (this is why I wanted G3 to start in the first place)

                                However, I don't think a Lance/PG/Danny/West/Roy lineup can potentially be better than a Hill/PG/Danny/West/Roy lineup defensively.

                                The lineup with Hill has the flexibility I think to be even more imposing than the the lineup with Lance. First off, I don't think Lance will ever be quick enough to consistently defend the one on a weekly basis. Against some matchup yes, but others he'll get destroyed. Now the nice thing with a Hill lineup, is if we want to attack the point position with size, we can by putting PG on the point and having Hill defend the 2, something he can do quite well except for a few matchups.

                                Keep in mind tho, this would not necessarily work with Lance, because you'd have to DEPEND on PG to defend the point versus defending it in spurts. I don't think PG can defend that position full time either.

                                In actual real life game play, the lineup with Hill is better defensively AND more imposing. Also, remember that Hill is long as **** so when Lance is at the 1, he's not offering much more length to the position. Size and strength? Yes. But does it matter? No point guard in the league can overpower Hill so they don't have an advantage there, so in the end, you aren't really giving the 1 position that big of an advantage in terms of sheer size.

                                Lance should always prove a better 2 defender than Hill it should be noted. His strength there is much more important. No two will use their size against Lance, though they would against Hill in select matchups...
                                Last edited by mattie; 10-31-2013, 03:27 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X