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

Uncle Buck speaks....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    I tell ya, that's a truly brilliant idea. Let's get rid of our most consistent player with no way to replace him. I'm sure that will improve the team.

    Let's do it so the guys that have been playing like crap can have more shots! Brilliant!

    Lance has been the scapegoat for this team from day 1. If I was him I'd just leave and find a team that doesn't blame him for everything.
    Lance is my favorite individual player on the team. He's an amazing talent, with one big ole heart. But if he can't play effectively with the other members of the starting team, he's got to go. Period.

    That's what team basketball is all about.

    I don't scapegoat him in any way, personally.. b/c I think this can still turn around, and he's been a consistent contributor throughout the year.

    But if he can't be cohesive with the rest of the players we're already committed to, then he's got to go.

    Comment


    • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      The flaw here is that you're using stats to back up your argument but their stats are very similar (Hill last year to Lance this year).

      You may think that I underrate Lance but I think many overrate him and think hes a superstar in the making. He's not going to be leading any team to an high winning level as the number one offensive option. Hes not a James Harden or anything close IMO.

      As far as young 2guards, he's not better than Klay Thompson, Demar Derozean, and is prob about on par with Wes Matthews (not a knock on either guy, I like them both)
      Their stats aren't similar. Lances are better across the board. And he's going to get better, Hill isn't.

      I wouldn't trade Lance for Derozen or Thompson. You think Lance shoots too much, you wouldn't like Derozen or Thompson. Derozen shoots 43% on 15 shots a game and Thompson shoots 43.5 on 15 shots a game. Lance is a year younger than both and just a better all around player.

      Wes Mathews is 5 years older than Lance. That's a joke.

      How many young PGs would you take over Hill? 10? 15? 20 maybe?

      Lillard
      Walker
      Rubio
      Lawson
      Curry
      Lowry
      Conley
      Irving
      Wall
      Rose
      Dragic
      Bledsoe
      Oladipo
      Paul
      Jackson
      Williams
      Rondo
      Westbrook
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
        Lance is my favorite individual player on the team. He's an amazing talent, with one big ole heart. But if he can't play effectively with the other members of the starting team, he's got to go. Period.

        That's what team basketball is all about.

        I don't scapegoat him in any way, personally.. b/c I think this can still turn around, and he's been a consistent contributor throughout the year.

        But if he can't be cohesive with the rest of the players we're already committed to, then he's got to go.
        I agree, I said if the whole team doesn't like him he has to go. All I'm saying is letting him walk is D-U-M-B.

        The team CAN play effectively with Lance, they have. Lance can play effectively with them too, he has. I don't see the argument here. I think he's just being scapegoated. He has no bearing on Paul George's poor play offensively, he's just taking bad shots. He has no bearing on Hibberts play either, he's just not getting position where he needs it to be effective. Why Lance is being blamed for that I have no idea. He isn't taking any more shots, and he is shooting a good percentage. I just don't see it from a basketball standpoint.

        If it's a personality thing I could see that. Maybe the guys just don't like him. But saying the team can't play effectively because of him is just not true. JMO
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          Their stats aren't similar. Lances are better across the board. And he's going to get better, Hill isn't.

          I wouldn't trade Lance for Derozen or Thompson. You think Lance shoots too much, you wouldn't like Derozen or Thompson. Derozen shoots 43% on 15 shots a game and Thompson shoots 43.5 on 15 shots a game. Lance is a year younger than both and just a better all around player.

          Wes Mathews is 5 years older than Lance. That's a joke.

          How many young PGs would you take over Hill? 10? 15? 20 maybe?

          Lillard
          Walker
          Rubio
          Lawson
          Curry
          Lowry
          Conley
          Irving
          Wall
          Rose
          Dragic
          Bledsoe
          Oladipo
          Paul
          Jackson
          Williams
          Rondo
          Westbrook
          I appreciate your enthusiasm. trust me im pro lance and want to see him succeed.

          at this time I ask tho is he born ready to win a BANNER or born ready to get PAID.


          the BANNER will bring both.

          Comment


          • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

            Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
            I appreciate your enthusiasm. trust me im pro lance and want to see him succeed.

            at this time I ask tho is he born ready to win a BANNER or born ready to get PAID.


            the BANNER will bring both.
            I don't see that either.

            Of course he wants to get paid, just like Roy, West, Hill and PG did.

            Lance and West are clearly the two most competitive guys we have. I'm 100% convinced Lance wants to win.

            He certainly ain't dressed in all leather taking pics after the games smilin, lol.
            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

            Comment


            • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              I don't see that either.

              Of course he wants to get paid, just like Roy, West, Hill and PG did.

              Lance and West are clearly the two most competitive guys we have. I'm 100% convinced Lance wants to win.

              He certainly ain't dressed in all leather taking pics after the games smilin, lol.
              then he needs to MAN up and do wat the team wants of him then earn his paycheck in the postseason like PG HIBB did. stop thrown the ball outta bounds on key possessions.

              Comment


              • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                I think this is a monster overreaction thread. I'm not too concerned here. I think they'll figure it out.

                Comment


                • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                  Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                  I think this is a monster overreaction thread. I'm not too concerned here. I think they'll figure it out.
                  I'll just say this.....if UB.....one of the most pragmatic posters on PD.....says that something is wrong.....then I think that something is wrong. He's not the definitive "end all be all" on any matter like this.....but when he's come over to the "dark side".....then his original post IMHO only solidifies what many ( who have been saying that something has been off-kilter since the ASB ) have been saying since the ASB.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    I agree, I said if the whole team doesn't like him he has to go. All I'm saying is letting him walk is D-U-M-B.

                    The team CAN play effectively with Lance, they have. Lance can play effectively with them too, he has. I don't see the argument here. I think he's just being scapegoated. He has no bearing on Paul George's poor play offensively, he's just taking bad shots. He has no bearing on Hibberts play either, he's just not getting position where he needs it to be effective. Why Lance is being blamed for that I have no idea. He isn't taking any more shots, and he is shooting a good percentage. I just don't see it from a basketball standpoint.

                    If it's a personality thing I could see that. Maybe the guys just don't like him. But saying the team can't play effectively because of him is just not true. JMO
                    So, do you think that he shares any blame for how the Team has been playing since the ASB?

                    I'm not saying that he should take ALL of the blame....but I think that he has contributed to it.

                    How much of the blame? I can see that it's arguable where some may think that he doesn't share any of it at all to being a big part of the problem.

                    IMHO....I place a larger blame on Vogel, PG24 and Lance ( mainly because the offense flows through the both of them more than the rest of the Team and they both have a tendency to make mistakes ). But I do not absolve the rest of the Starting lineup from any part of the blame for where we are right now.....especially Hibbert's underwhelming offense as of late.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 03-26-2014, 01:37 AM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                      I don't see that either.

                      Of course he wants to get paid, just like Roy, West, Hill and PG did.

                      Lance and West are clearly the two most competitive guys we have. I'm 100% convinced Lance wants to win.

                      He certainly ain't dressed in all leather taking pics after the games smilin, lol.
                      Yeah but he also isn't playing the kind of ball that this team needs to win. We were dominating when he was a pass first guy who took over sometimes, now he is trying to become a ballhog, dribble and shoot if he can find a shot and if not throw a last second pass which puts us in panic position. Not saying he is all the problem but he isn't immune to criticism either.
                      #LanceEffect

                      Comment


                      • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                        And let me be 100% clear. 100% clear about this. This has nothing, zero, nada to do with the bench players. No this is the starters, plain and simple. The chemistry has fallen apart amongst the 5 starters. They are not playing like a team, they are not together.
                        Impossible.

                        I was rode out on a rail for suggesting that this group could in any way be distracted, let alone lose chemistry, in both the Bynum joins the team thread and my own "2003 comparison thread".

                        [/bitterness]

                        Comment


                        • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....p

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          Their stats aren't similar. Lances are better across the board. And he's going to get better, Hill isn't.

                          I wouldn't trade Lance for Derozen or Thompson. You think Lance shoots too much, you wouldn't like Derozen or Thompson. Derozen shoots 43% on 15 shots a game and Thompson shoots 43.5 on 15 shots a game. Lance is a year younger than both and just a better all around player.

                          Wes Mathews is 5 years older than Lance. That's a joke.

                          How many young PGs would you take over Hill? 10? 15? 20 maybe?

                          Lillard
                          Walker
                          Rubio
                          Lawson
                          Curry
                          Lowry
                          Conley
                          Irving
                          Wall
                          Rose
                          Dragic
                          Bledsoe
                          Oladipo
                          Paul
                          Jackson
                          Williams
                          Rondo
                          Westbrook
                          I'm not debating that Lance is a more talented player than Hill, just that Hill has shown he can produce at the same level that Lance has this year. I also never said Lance shoots too much, just that he needs to blend his individual game in with the rest of the team like he did earlier in the season. I don't judge players solely on statistics and "potential". Yes he is a younger dude, but he's also been in the league for 4 years now. He didn't even get off the bench until last year, and didn't average double figures until this year..his contract season. We have seen plenty of young players blow up during their contract season, nothing new there. He also plays with three other AS caliber players

                          Our differing personal opinions of Lance don't really matter in the grand scheme of thins. It's the opinion of his teammates that does matter, and for whatever reason they seemed to be annoyed with the dude and his play recently. I'm basing it off of on-court demeanor, Roy's comments after the NY game, and the lack of togetherness we have seen from the team during it's recent slump. ESPN picked up on this vibe as well.

                          To the naked eye Lance's stats look similar to what he was doing earlier in the season, but his game has been pretty different since his AS snub, and it's a detriment to the team right now. (You could say the same thing about Paul as well) So while you boast about his fg% and other stats, his teammates seem to want him to slow his role and play more within himself and the team.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            So, do you think that he shares any blame for how the Team has been playing since the ASB?

                            I'm not saying that he should take ALL of the blame....but I think that he has contributed to it.

                            How much of the blame? I can see that it's arguable where some may think that he doesn't share any of it at all to being a big part of the problem.

                            IMHO....I place a larger blame on Vogel, PG24 and Lance ( mainly because the offense flows through the both of them more than the rest of the Team and they both have a tendency to make mistakes ). But I do not absolve the rest of the Starting lineup from any part of the blame for where we are right now.....especially Hibbert's underwhelming offense as of late.
                            I do, just not sure how much.

                            My biggest complaint with Lance is that he's not running as much as he was earlier in the year. We are a team that doesn't get out in transition often enough, and that is what we need from him most. He needs to be more careful with the ball, make the smart play. He's also got to defend better. He's done well most of the year but he has stretches in just about every game he seems to lack focus on that end.

                            I also think that we are putting a tremendous amount of pressure on PG and Lance to succeed at a very young age. We are title contenders and Lance is only in his 2nd year as a starter. These guys are 23. That's a lot of pressure on a young ball player. To win the title and beat Miami, those two got to go head to head with two of the best players to ever play, and hold their own. And sometimes I just don't think they are quite ready for that.
                            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              4 months ago Lance was a very key piece for a team DOMINATING the entire league. Now they can't play together because of 1 month of .500 ball? Because Lance isn't passing the ball as well as he was earlier in the year? Because he's taking a few more outside shots, and HITTING them? It ain't like they've dropped 10 in a row. It ain't like Lance is jacking up 20 shots and completely taking over the team. He is sharing the ball and at least TRYING to play team ball. And they are still very competitive. These guys are only 23 years old, it is away too early to throw in the towel.
                              Bird, Frank, Roy, West, Scola, PG...... They've all said the exact opposite.
                              Last edited by Since86; 03-26-2014, 08:36 AM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Bird, Frank, Roy, West, Scola, PG...... They've all said the exact opposite.
                                C'mon man that's a huge stretch.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X