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

Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

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

  • #76
    Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

    I'm really taking a wait and see approach. Although losing Lance is huge, simply because he was arguably the second best player on an ECF team, there were clearly chemistry issues there. I totally don't buy PGs explanation of his answer post Miami loss, when asked if he wanted Lance back. I think that was a genuine Freudian slip ("I don't know").
    That being said, I think both camps here (Pacers better or worse without LS?) will be able to defend their argument just because the pacers had a great first half and awful second half last year. If this current team wins, then they're better without LS and chemistry was the issue...if they have a worse record, then they miss LS.
    i personally think coaching is the issue, that Vogel might be okay defensively at times, but his offense is like Isaiah Thomas' was, start out the season smoking, teams figure out what you're doing, and you have limited adaptability. This was on full display against Atlanta in playoffs...he barely figured it out and I wonder if he did or if Bird or someone on his staff didn't tell him the obvious. He's shown a knack for not being able to use his assets, a veritable anti-Popovich in that regard. I almost would have preferred a assistant coach upgrade, or coaching upgrade. I do question if he'll be retained unless he doesn't at least match the last two years performances.


    As far as Miles is concerned, and maybe more so Stuckey, I always wonder if a double-digit player on a bad team is a great addition, or is it the eternal question, ala Evan Turner, of good numbers on bad team. (Given that ET is still unsigned right now, even for vet minimum, I'm wondering if he was a chemistry issue). I'm a bit more forgiving when the player isn't the ball-dominant 'best' player on that bad team, which both of these guys were. Am I expecting 20 ppg? No. But both these guys have made some money, know there isn't a mega payday likely waiting, a little older, a little wiser, want to fit in, and in Stuckeys case it's essentially another contract year, so he should be highly motivated to contribute in any way and play hard. What's intriguing to me about Stuckey, and why I'm not jumping off the cliff after LS departure, is that Stuckey has been around 7 years, only 28, has played only on losing teams, 6 different coaches and a merry go round of teammates, and in a crappy city. I would think coming to Indy is like getting out of purgatory. Do I expect him to be great immediately? Not necessarily, it takes time to mesh...but having LaVoy, Miles and him thru training camp will help.


    I think we have no less versatility than San Antonio right now, 3 good-great players (Roy, West, PG), and a bunch of unique role/combo players, each with special skill sets/specialists in some facet of the game. Popovich had a similar situation last year with three aging/old players (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili), one rising star, and a bunch of D-league outcasts, Euro players, and 2nd rounders, each with special skills...he won a title with what RC Buford gave him, Vogel has watched the finals from home the last 3 years with what Bird gave him.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      It'll require Hibbert and Hill to make consistent contributions, which is a big if. One thing is for sure, if they don't without Lance in the picture anymore, then they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves.
      This.

      I believe more than one player had issues with Lance and now it's up to the rest of the players to show they are better without him. A lot of weight is going to be placed on Hill and Hibbert who I believe had major issues with Lance. The players we acquired like CJ Miles will help but it's going to come down to the same players we had last year. Time to step it up.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

        Originally posted by Goyle View Post
        The teams that got better were WAY worse than us last year.
        They really weren't though. By the end of the year, we were not the same team we were at the beginning. I don't know that we get by Atlanta or Washington without Lance.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

          Originally posted by kellogg View Post

          As far as Miles is concerned, and maybe more so Stuckey, I always wonder if a double-digit player on a bad team is a great addition, or is it the eternal question, ala Evan Turner, of good numbers on bad team. (Given that ET is still unsigned right now, even for vet minimum, I'm wondering if he was a chemistry issue). I'm a bit more forgiving when the player isn't the ball-dominant 'best' player on that bad team, which both of these guys were.

          I think you've got Miles pegged totally wrong, he's a role player... and contrary to popular belief, that's actually NOT a bad thing. He knows how to be effective without the ball in his hands, and he specializes in knocking down open three pointers. Its the exact opposite of what you are describing here, though the description does fit Stuckey a bit better as a ball dominant guard.

          To me, Stuckey is an upgrade from Evan Turner and a downgrade from Lance (of course). However, Stuckey may be a better fit than Lance because he is going to "play his role" better. In purely a bench role, a guy who can come in and attack the basket relentlessly could provide a great spark to our previously lackluster bench situation. I like him in this potential role, and given his situation, he is a player that will be willing to accept this smaller role and hopefully maximize his effectiveness. This is what differentiates him from Lance. Lance wanted to be the man, even at the detriment of the team concept. Having players who "know their role" and execute it, is much more preferable to me.

          In the case of Miles, I think adding a sharp shooter in with the starters is going to solve a host of problems. More space means more space for David and Roy to operate in the post, more space for PG and Hill to drive and probe. People have forgotten one of our biggest offensive issues was the way teams collapsed defensively because of the poor spacing, due to a lack of serious shooting threats. People just say "Roy started to suck" or "PG started to jack shots" without making any sort of analysis to perhaps, why, that happened.

          Saying that losing Lance could be addition by subtraction is usually greeted as some form of naive, wishful thinking. However, I think there is plenty of evidence that these additions actually make a whole lot of sense, even if they don't appear "sexy" on paper. That's without even touching on the possibility of improved overall chemistry, which seems likely.
          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

          - ilive4sports

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
            So not only do you think trading West away is a good idea (because he's got value to a team on the cusp, which btw doesn't describe the pacers and their back to back conference finals losses at all), but you think replacing him with a SF off of the worst team in the league gives us an upgrade at the PF position?

            I'm not even going to go into the bit where you think George Hill is the worst guard in the league and everybody is an upgrade over him.

            I know lots of people on here seem to like you, but either you are either starting to round into form as the most well-liked troll in pacers digest history or you hate this entire team so much you're willing to trade the entire team for pennies on the dollar. Given your stated reason for why you propose so many trades, I have my own opinion.


            Paul is the only starter I wouldn't move. Roy is mentally weak, West is aging, Hill is pathetic. I didn't want to trade Lance either. But looking back on the negotiations, I wish Larry had thought ahead and traded him at the deadline. Because letting young talent go for nothing sucks. But Larry couldn't have foresaw how this was gonna go. So I don't hate our team, I am just always looking for opportunities to get better. I lobbied for more Cope and LaVoy last season after all, and Larry added them for a reason. Yet they were never used. But you're a bit optimistic if you think Roy and Hill aren't our weakest players.

            If we move West, and Hill we at least break our critical weaknesses down to 1. Roy CAN be fixed, but surrounding him with shooters so there's less double teams? And getting a true point guard who will throw him passes he can catch. Not passes too far out (Hill), or Harlem Globetrotter passes (Lance).... will be the beginnings of how to fix Roy. But you can't honestly believe Hill will grow a heart, West will turn back the clock to age 25, and Hibbert will become Mr. aggression next season. That's way too much to hope for.

            Also Middleton is a PF and had some good games against us, look em' up. I also would love to swing a deal for the Morris twins. And in that case, I would be willing to move Copeland with West for both of them.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
              Paul is the only starter I wouldn't move. Roy is mentally weak, West is aging, Hill is pathetic. I didn't want to trade Lance either. But looking back on the negotiations, I wish Larry had thought ahead and traded him at the deadline. Because letting young talent go for nothing sucks. But Larry couldn't have foresaw how this was gonna go. So I don't hate our team, I am just always looking for opportunities to get better. I lobbied for more Cope and LaVoy last season after all, and Larry added them for a reason. Yet they were never used. But you're a bit optimistic if you think Roy and Hill aren't our weakest players.

              If we move West, and Hill we at least break our critical weaknesses down to 1. Roy CAN be fixed, but surrounding him with shooters so there's less double teams? And getting a true point guard who will throw him passes he can catch. Not passes too far out (Hill), or Harlem Globetrotter passes (Lance).... will be the beginnings of how to fix Roy. But you can't honestly believe Hill will grow a heart, West will turn back the clock to age 25, and Hibbert will become Mr. aggression next season. That's way too much to hope for.

              Also Middleton is a PF and had some good games against us, look em' up. I also would love to swing a deal for the Morris twins. And in that case, I would be willing to move Copeland with West for both of them.
              Damn Larry Bird for not knowing Lance would turn down a more lucrative offer from us and take less of an offer from Charlotte. Fire the guy already.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                Damn Larry Bird for not knowing Lance would turn down a more lucrative offer from us and take less of an offer from Charlotte. Fire the guy already.
                What Lance did was a surprise though. Leaving money and years on the table. I guess he must really be betting on that 2016 money.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  What Lance did was a surprise though. Leaving money and years on the table. I guess he must really be betting on that 2016 money.
                  And you can't really make a bet against a team you believe has a shot at the finals. Now we know that we lost we can say that we should have done lots of stuff, but before that you can't make that decision.
                  "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                    Just my opinion, but I think we will be better with Miles than with Lance. Lance has to have the ball to be effective. When GHill had the ball Lance just stood around a lot. For every highlight reel play he made he turned the ball over twice as much. I personally don't care for the street ball game he attempted to play. Lance could become very good someday but I just feel his immaturity costs us games last year.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      What Lance did was a surprise though. Leaving money and years on the table. I guess he must really be betting on that 2016 money.
                      Not really. A lot of people know that his talent is worth a lot more. He signed a short deal, where he can prove himself and get a lot more money on his next contract. He pretty much placed a bet on himself.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        A lot of teams in the East got better, we got worse. I don't understand how people fail to see that.
                        Because it's not clear cut we got worse

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                          I'm not worried about replacing Lance numbers-wise. What I am worried about is replacing his ability to create off the dribble and his passing. Who is going to create in this offense?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                            Originally posted by adamscb View Post
                            I'm not worried about replacing Lance numbers-wise. What I am worried about is replacing his ability to create off the dribble and his passing. Who is going to create in this offense?
                            Paul George, George Hill, and Rodney Stuckey, more post looks as well.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                              Because it's not clear cut we got worse
                              Yes it is.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Why losing Lance doesn't take us out of title contention

                                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                                Yes it is.
                                No it's not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X