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

Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

    Roy took another contested jumper last night out of a pick and roll situation when Lance and West were wide open. I don't like that he's falling in love with that shot. He's just bad in pick and rolls and it REALLY hurts the offense.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

      Scapegoats, you say?

      http://8points9seconds.com/2014/04/0...rs-scapegoats/
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

        ^^ The photo shoot ................. how could we all have missed that ??

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

          Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
          Let me preface this by saying Lance is my favorite Pacer, it was disheartening to see his body language last night when PG kind of started to take over. One offensive play stuck out in my mind where he just stood there and looked upset that he wasn't involved in the play. PG converted a shot on that play and Lance was the only player who showed no sign of happiness for the bucket. Also when he stole that rebound from Dwest that went outta bounds, I really was hoping he would just get up and say "my bad"…instead he acted like it was Dwest's fault…I know that has to be frustrating (for the other guys). He has to grow up a bit in this regard and realize every play isn't going to be run through him. He also needs to realize its ok to make a mistake and own up to it, especially considering his play style...those things ARE GOING TO HAPPEN. Lance is a top player in this league if he had David Wests head on his shoulder, I really hope it all clicks for him someday. It is just one of those things where you wish you could get inside a guys head and help him put it all together, it's frustrating but rewarding when you see everything clicking.

          I think deep down Lance thinks he is the best player on our team and is probably frustrated for what he perceives to be unfair treatment with PG getting more looks. If I was Lance, i'd be pissed watching PG "try to dribble" between defenders when he knows he could effectively do that and PG can not. As a fan, there is nothing more frustrating TO ME than watching PG "try to dribble" its like Granger all over again (not quite as bad though).

          Again….maturity, picking your battles, letting things slide, taking the good with the bad.

          Lance has his faults like everyone else, but his pro's FAR outweigh those cons. I really hope he doesn't get "dismissed" by this team next year because PG, GH (GH should never have a reason to be upset with anyone, he has been invisible all year), and Roy have issues with him, ultimately we will not be as good without Lance.
          Depends on who we could get for him in a sign and trade.

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            A good 3-5 minute stretch in the second quarter against bench players from the Pistons and Lance got our season back on track?
            It got this game back on track. I'm willing to bet if not for that sequence, we'd potentially be 10+ down going in the half. And that might've spelt doom. That small span got the players and, more importantly the crowd back into it.

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
              ^^ The photo shoot ................. how could we all have missed that ??
              It was pretty bad. **** GQ!
              "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                So, been thinking about my guy Lance and have decided to look at this from a different angle. I have tried to filter out my uncultured tendencies and look at this as strictly skills and schemes.

                Now, I could be wrong but...

                This team has the feel of the 90s Pacers (Miller, Smits, Jax, etc) instead of the 00s (Jackson, Miller, Artest, JO). The 90s depended on defense to keep them in games and could be a real grind on the offense end. Individually, they were slow and un-athletic. They all had some pretty good deficiencies (slow PG, clumsy C) but they were so disciplined on both ends that they got by and were tough to beat. They maxed out with the skills they had available. Their only real speed was Travis Best so running was pretty much out as an option.

                Now the 2014 team has some better athletes at SF (I did like Mullins/McKey) and PG (but Jax was such an elite captain/distributor, I miss him) but really not that much more speed with the exception of Lance. This team was built for East Conf BB. Execute in the half court and play defense. I will concede they were scoring big earlier in the year (PG was smoking hot) but we are experiencing a collective shooting slump (talking to you Scola).
                But let's say you make a conscience decision to find out if can leverage Lance skills to find some easy offense?

                Admittedly, you turn him loose and start pushing it, you risk losing (literally) the rest of the herd. Again, it was just not built for it because no one could foresee the need.

                But you've decided to loosen it up and go...

                How many times do you plan/hope to go? Under what circumstances? Who do you pair him with to get the max out of this? I'm serious. CJ, Sloan, Turner, PG (together Lance with the 2nd team)? Ian (forget I said that, he couldn't finish as the trailer). Do you remember how Dale would sprint to the front of the rim on the break and get 2 or 3 easy buckets per? Ian couldn't do it, the ball would go off his face. You make a concerted effort to make it a real part of the offense. But Lance has to convince you he would be smart enough to break it off it he is alone vs 3 (that happened a couple of times late against Det) or if just isn't there. And others have to buy in (read GH/PG).

                And if you can't/won't make it work, maybe we are just flat out mismatched with Lance.

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                  talking about running.

                  I was watching Kentucky during the open practice for the regional. They had a 3 man drill where they had a guy underneath his own basket and 2 guys on the wings. While the guy was hitting the first guy at the half court, the wing on the other side would sprint to the front of the other rim. The asst coach would chew their asses if they didn't lead the guy receiving the pass and the guy at the other end never took more than 1 dribble to finish. Most of the time the ball never touched the floor. I watched that for 10 mins and thought it was a pretty cool drill. And they had all their bigs running.

                  Roy would have been gasssssssssssssed.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                    I'm all for Lance fast breaks as long as Lance is playing smart, and not trying to make the unnecessarily fancy pass. I think most people are. It adds another dimension to the team, and if you catch the defense off guard, easy points. Just have to be ok with Roy and West not running, and taking a short breather instead.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                      Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
                      talking about running.

                      I was watching Kentucky during the open practice for the regional. They had a 3 man drill where they had a guy underneath his own basket and 2 guys on the wings. While the guy was hitting the first guy at the half court, the wing on the other side would sprint to the front of the other rim. The asst coach would chew their asses if they didn't lead the guy receiving the pass and the guy at the other end never took more than 1 dribble to finish. Most of the time the ball never touched the floor. I watched that for 10 mins and thought it was a pretty cool drill. And they had all their bigs running.

                      Roy would have been gasssssssssssssed.
                      This is how the Celtics ran in the 80's and got lots of cheap baskets with a less than athletic bunch. Problem is the Pacers are not a good or disciplined passing team like that Celtic group was. Trying to quickly force the ball deep into the front court with a couple of passes would probably be a disaster.

                      I'm positive on the Lance-Break as long as the focus is to quickly probe for an exploitable weakness and if its not there then just break it off. It also keeps the other team from getting into their defensive set right away and provides a good chance at a secondary scoring opportunity. The rub is that Lance is maturing and sometimes forces things that are not there on the break or he can be prone to pounding the ball on the wing too long allowing the defense to recover and thereby losing that secondary scoring opportunity.

                      I'd much rather see the team move the ball without dribbling in the half court sets. Focus on simple passes and make the defense move their feet. Lance is great inside the painted area without the ball. He is so strong and can get open quickly. He also can finish or draw fouls against helping bigs.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                        Lots of what I am seeing written here goes along with something I've been
                        giving some thought to lately which is what exactly does it take for a team
                        to "control the tempo" of the game?

                        http://functionalbasketballcoaching....d-of-the-game/

                        I seem to remember hearing lots about controlling the tempo of the game
                        early in the season when the Pacers were doing really well, but is seems
                        like their opponents were the ones controlling the tempo as the Pacers
                        went through their latest funk.

                        Now my concern with how this applies to Lance is; yes he may be a sparkplug
                        that can push the ball up the court quickly, plays "balls to the wall", and is one
                        of our best individual players. But how well does he "get it" when it comes to
                        contributing to a team effort to controlling the tempo of a game?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X