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

  • #31
    Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

    Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
    He is a good player. No one denies that. But all stats aside, my issue is I don't think he is/will be a particularly good teammate. He is a much better player than JRSmith but he has a similar annoying selfish vibe. When things aren't going well for Lance, everybody knows it. Including a fair number of referees.

    Gotta be the center of attention. And a fair number of referees are willing to accommodate him.

    And I get that the youngsters amongst us think that's OK.

    But for me, IMHO, million dollar talent (but there is a lot of great talent in the NBA), 50 cent head (a few of those floating around too).
    I disagree, terrible comparison to JR Smith. I think he could become this if he doesn't continue to improve or gets in the wrong situation next year.

    I think Lance has been the one guy not pouting and trying to effort them out of this horrible situation. I don't think he's scared of not being liked by the superstars of the league and this gets interpreted as arrogant. Maybe it is, but at least he has the competitiveness to not be a wuss. To me, Lance has been the opposite of a scapegoat and the one guy who's not hanging his head, I appreciate that and see it as mentally tough. He has his theatrics, he makes bad passes at times (not worse than what David West looked like last night though). He'll also get in Lebrons grill and he also can make people around him better.

    Lance should be the anti scapegoat, he's the only one with enough balls to take responsibility and not pout about whats going on.

    Hell, I'd give him more responsiblity at this point, not blame him for whats going on.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

      I'm really not understanding how the most consistent, fierce player is even a remote problem. I wish some of that "problem" would rub off on Hibbert and George.


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

        Win as a team, lose as a team. Everyone should share the blame for the on-court production.

        That said, we don't know if this problem exists solely on the court. If this problem is the result of off-court and chemistry issues then this board simply cannot know who is responsible for that.
        Last edited by Nuntius; 04-02-2014, 12:02 PM. Reason: typo
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

          Now I'm not on my phone I can elaborate a little more...

          The issue with Lance was (and I say was because he has really cut down on them recently) that he not only committed turnovers he basically forced turnovers onto teammates. In particular, those wild no-look passes that require the receiver to scramble to get them (or get them in a bad position). These have been blamed on the receiver "not being in position", but they are no-look flings or behind -the-back passes that would require exact positioning of a receiver and seldom work in the situations Lance would use them (receiver running past defenders blocking line-of-sight, for instance).

          Given those (and that the subsequent TOs or missed shot opportunities would not be credited to Lance), I can DEFINITELY see why teammates would be upset with him.

          Again, though, in the last few games he seems to have cut way back on those. He's doing his part to try to correct things. At this point, he needs to be off the list of major problems - but remember, some of the "new" quotes cropping up are from last week still.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

            Lance is a lot easier to blame for these guys for many reasons. His contract is up this year, his game draws a lot of attention to himself good and bad, he doesn't make a ton of money and unfortunately I don't think Lance is smart enough to really mount a good defense for himself. He is an easy target.

            I liked what Tim called Roy on Twitter yesterday Victim #55. His whole career any time he has struggled it has been someone else's fault. Roy has the highest highs and lowest lows of any NBA player I can remember in the past 10 years.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Now I'm not on my phone I can elaborate a little more...

              The issue with Lance was (and I say was because he has really cut down on them recently) that he not only committed turnovers he basically forced turnovers onto teammates. In particular, those wild no-look passes that require the receiver to scramble to get them (or get them in a bad position). These have been blamed on the receiver "not being in position", but they are no-look flings or behind -the-back passes that would require exact positioning of a receiver and seldom work in the situations Lance would use them (receiver running past defenders blocking line-of-sight, for instance).

              Given those (and that the subsequent TOs or missed shot opportunities would not be credited to Lance), I can DEFINITELY see why teammates would be upset with him.

              Again, though, in the last few games he seems to have cut way back on those. He's doing his part to try to correct things. At this point, he needs to be off the list of major problems - but remember, some of the "new" quotes cropping up are from last week still.
              But how is that any different than, say when others are committing stupid turnovers, or Paul taking on the whole team and shooting contested jumpshots?

              If you can happen to watch the last Houston game, there were 2 times that West had dribbled into a trap, then out of desperation he'd heave the ball at the nearest Pacer he saw...but guess what, it lands directly into the opponents hands. I'm not talking about so-and-so made a good defensive effort and intercepted the ball, I'm talking about the ball landed directly into the opponents chest on one occasion, and into his arms on another. And there were several instances, where West would get a rebound, and try to fling it full-court and it doesn't even come close to who he was throwing it to, but will land in an opponents hands. Why does he get excused for that? He, and the other starters equally do just as many stupid things per game as Lance does. Give or take 1 or so.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                Apparently Hill and Lance had beef last night on the bench. Were yelling and screaming at each other. Had to be separated. Per Grady and Mike Wells.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                  We gotta stop looking for scapegoats. If they wear a shirt that says Pacers on it they're at fault, they've ALL been terrible.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                    Originally posted by pogi View Post
                    But how is that any different than, say when others are committing stupid turnovers, or Paul taking on the whole team and shooting contested jumpshots?

                    If you can happen to watch the last Houston game, there were 2 times that West had dribbled into a trap, then out of desperation he'd heave the ball at the nearest Pacer he saw...but guess what, it lands directly into the opponents hands. I'm not talking about so-and-so made a good defensive effort and intercepted the ball, I'm talking about the ball landed directly into the opponents chest on one occasion, and into his arms on another. And there were several instances, where West would get a rebound, and try to fling it full-court and it doesn't even come close to who he was throwing it to, but will land in an opponents hands. Why does he get excused for that? He, and the other starters equally do just as many stupid things per game as Lance does. Give or take 1 or so.
                    The difference is that in the cases you mention the guy who screwed up gets credited for the screwup. It's all on him.

                    The situation with Lance is that he would do something and SOMEONE ELSE would get credited for the turnover, or the need to heave the desperation shot because he got the ball at the last minute. Lance's stats were fine. Add to that the stretch where if someone missed a shot after being passed to that Lance would jaw at them for messing up his assists, and you get a lot of antagonism built up.

                    From the team perspective, they all need to be fixed. But it's why people got more pissy at Lance then at some of the others.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The difference is that in the cases you mention the guy who screwed up gets credited for the screwup. It's all on him.

                      The situation with Lance is that he would do something and SOMEONE ELSE would get credited for the turnover, or the need to heave the desperation shot because he got the ball at the last minute. Lance's stats were fine. Add to that the stretch where if someone missed a shot after being passed to that Lance would jaw at them for messing up his assists, and you get a lot of antagonism built up.

                      From the team perspective, they all need to be fixed. But it's why people got more pissy at Lance then at some of the others.
                      I feel that Paul is worse at that than Lance. Paul will throw the ball right into the defenders half the times (or at a bad angle), then goes to admonish the teammate about why he shouldv'e been here instead of there.

                      Also, I don't get how you can come up with that. Lance doesn't complain to the media (like Roy), and he doesn't go chastise the teammate (like Paul).
                      Last edited by pogi; 04-01-2014, 11:39 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                        Originally posted by pogi View Post
                        I feel that Paul is worse at that than Lance.
                        I'd need some film on that. Paul has been hogging the ball, but I see him shoot at the last minute rather than pass to someone else (except recently, where in an attempt to fix things nearly everyone is trying to pass too much at the wrong times). I also seldom see Paul try to make an unnecessary flashy pass, nor does he drive into three defenders and suddenly no-look to the trailer who can't space because he has no idea when in the crazy rush the ball will actually come back to him.

                        I've seen Hill try some silly passes at times (including that no-look backward pass from time to time) but not Paul.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                          Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
                          My opinion of Paul George and Lance Stephenson is that beyond the mental aspects and whatever the hell is going on with the team, I don't think you can have them start at the 2 and 3 on a championship team. Maybe they can prove me really wrong but I think you really need a 3 point specialist at the SG so it gives Paul and Roy and West more room to operate. My only issue is that I feel there's almost a curse going on with new players coming in; you could get Kyle Korver on the team and it seems he'd shoot 30% from the field.
                          I wish people would stop saying it's a curse. It's not a curse. It's Vogel's complete lack of an offensive system.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I'd need some film on that. Paul has been hogging the ball, but I see him shoot at the last minute rather than pass to someone else (except recently, where in an attempt to fix things nearly everyone is trying to pass too much at the wrong times). I also seldom see Paul try to make an unnecessary flashy pass, nor does he drive into three defenders and suddenly no-look to the trailer who can't space because he has no idea when in the crazy rush the ball will actually come back to him.

                            I've seen Hill try some silly passes at times (including that no-look backward pass from time to time) but not Paul.
                            I agree that he doesn't always throw the behind-the-back alot (though I have seen a few); but, he does sometimes pass to a heavily-guarded teammate, that results to a turnover, and while/after the fast-break, he'll turn to the teammate and try to explain how they should've did this or that. And I also have seen him muck up 3 on 1 fast-breaks.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                              Goat Simulator is the latest in goat simulation technology, bringing next-gen goat simulation to YOU. You no longer have to fantasize about being a goat, your dreams have finally come true!

                              "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Lance Stephenson: Is he a worthy scapegoat?

                                Originally posted by pogi View Post
                                and he doesn't go chastise the teammate (like Paul).
                                There were a lot of incidents, reported by people right here on PD, where Lance would throw the ball to a teammate and if he missed the shot or passed it to someone else Lance was right there with his hands in the air complaining about not getting the assist. I saw them from my seat at the games.

                                Again, the incidences of that lessened a lot as the triple-double fascination dropped, but that's the kind of thing that lingers.

                                Once more, I'm just trying to explain why teammates have a problem with Lance even though his numbers don't look so bad. Even in the examples you give for Paul, PAUL is the one credited with the turnover or missed shot. In the things Lance did, his TEAMMATE ended up with the turnover or had to force the shot. While having a guy jaw at you for his mistake is bad, having a guy force you into making mistakes and then point at his own numbers as a reason why it isn't his fault is worse.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X