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

Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

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

  • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    ] He's not better than Lance at anything except sitting on the bench.
    Lol, I don't know if you meant it this way, but literally.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      He's not better than Lance at anything except sitting on the bench.
      I'm not convinced of this. I don't recall Lance shoving another player aside for a bench seat at anytime in the last three years (when Lance actually sat on the bench, of course).

      **** Evan Turner, **** the horse he rode in on, and good ****ing riddance.
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        True. But the plan B was Turner. A much more mature, polished, and smoother version of Lance. No one can get excited about Rodney Stuckey. So this means losing faith in the front office.
        If plan B was Turner, don't you think Turner would be on the team? He's still a free agent, we still have his bird rights (i would assume), and we still have the same possibilities to cut salary that we did for Lance. Turner was not plan B.
        Last edited by aamcguy; 07-17-2014, 11:10 AM.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          I'm not sure what your point is. All I'm saying is I think the biggest problem is off the team. Does Roy have a lot to work on? Absolutely. But I believe the main culprit for the slump was one of our best playmakers making plays for himself/stats and acting immaturely on the court.
          we'll find out next year. (although watch people blame Born Rodney--maybe even rightfully. Call me a Purdue fan, but if you are getting a backup 1/2, why not sign someone like E'Twaun Moore, who you know is at least good in the locker room.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Quoted T Birds idea in another thread, but babysitting Lance can wear on players and coaches.
            I will "Thank" this post x10. The Pacers are still flawed because of the the slowness of the overall team but at least I will not have to watch Lance lollygagging around on defense and get aggressive when he wants to. Lance has ability but it is too unreliable.
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

              This thread has turned from amusing to laughably embarrassing.

              http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/aaaaaaaaaaaaahaha/
              Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                You know what makes me cope? The fact that I don't have to watch Lance mope around on offense and defense for reasons only known to him!

                That crap is contagious in that your team isn't going to play like a team when one guy is acting like that. I went to every game, this is something that wasn't always noticeable on TV but after All Star break this crap would happen every game. Dude would just stand around mope, pout, hanging his arms and stand around then call for the ball or decide to get in a defensive stance when his man got the ball.

                Is Lance a good team player? If you answer that honestly there's nothing else to discuss.
                If you were watching lance mope, then you weren't watching Roy mope, or West not even bother to block out, or Hill stand around, or PG complain. People who pick on Lance for this obviously were to busy watching him to realize that there was an issue with the entire starting unit for the second half of last year, and that Lance was in many ways the least of our worries or problems. At least he could still pass and dribble, putting him above Roy and Hill in capability, and at least he tried to rebound and block out, putting him above Roy and West in effort.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                  Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                  If you were watching lance mope, then you weren't watching Roy mope, or West not even bother to block out, or Hill stand around, or PG complain. People who pick on Lance for this obviously were to busy watching him to realize that there was an issue with the entire starting unit for the second half of last year, and that Lance was in many ways the least of our worries or problems. At least he could still pass and dribble, putting him above Roy and Hill in capability, and at least he tried to rebound and block out, putting him above Roy and West in effort.
                  Our team was easy championship favorites the first half of the season. Lance was a pass first guy, lance got snubbed from the All Star team and went into full ME mode.
                  Our team worked because our starting five were all unselfish, all believed, trusted each other. When 1 of those 5 loses that, it's done.

                  Not blaming it all on Lance, there are things that could've been done, but I do believe he played a huge role in it.
                  #LanceEffect

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    If anyone is listening to Grady and Big Joe right now, Vince Ellis from the Detroit Free Press is on talking about Stuckey.

                    A few points from the IV:

                    **Stuckey was immature and insubordinate his first few years, but he's been on good behavior the last 3 years or so.
                    **Thinks Stuckey is a steal at the vet minimum.
                    **Thinks he'd be good as the 5th starter or the 6th man.
                    **Not a guy to run the team, but knows his game and sticks to his strengths: gets to the rim and gets to the FT line (which we knew). Doesn't try and do too much, just sticks to what he does well.
                    **When engaged he is a solid defender.
                    **Self Aware. Is honest about his issues, and speaks his mind - which has gotten him in trouble in the past. Should do better in a change of scenery.
                    I caught most of that as well. He also said Stuckey KNOWS he is not a three point shooter and doesn't try to press the issue. He might take it if he is caught with the ball and only a couple seconds left on the shot clock.

                    Sounds like a player who understands his own weaknesses.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      True. But the plan B was Turner. A much more mature, polished, and smoother version of Lance. No one can get excited about Rodney Stuckey. So this means losing faith in the front office.
                      I highly doubt plan b was really Turner.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                        I always thought Stuckey was an aggressive drive to the hoop kind of player with some athleticism.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                          I can only hope at the end of the year everybody (me included), will have to admit the signing was better than they thought. I know there are some who are more optimistic than others, but it doesn't seem like expectations are too high for Stuckey. The one thing I will say is that if he comes off the bench and averages his 13 pts and doesn't do anything stupid, then this signing will be a wild success.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            If anyone is listening to Grady and Big Joe right now, Vince Ellis from the Detroit Free Press is on talking about Stuckey.

                            A few points from the IV:

                            **Stuckey was immature and insubordinate his first few years, but he's been on good behavior the last 3 years or so.
                            **Thinks Stuckey is a steal at the vet minimum.
                            **Thinks he'd be good as the 5th starter or the 6th man.
                            **Not a guy to run the team, but knows his game and sticks to his strengths: gets to the rim and gets to the FT line (which we knew). Doesn't try and do too much, just sticks to what he does well.
                            **When engaged he is a solid defender.
                            **Self Aware. Is honest about his issues, and speaks his mind - which has gotten him in trouble in the past. Should do better in a change of scenery.
                            It's a pretty high quality talent to get for a vet minimum salary, IMO. And unlike Turner, he will have an entire training camp and pre-season to learn how the team operates. I'm optimistic.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                              I highly doubt plan b was really Turner.
                              I think at the time of the trade, plan B was absolutely Turner. He just wasn't a fit and by the end of the playoffs the front office had pretty much ruled out a return of the Villain.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers sign Rodney Stuckey

                                I just do not understand why this move has been made, not a forward thinking type of move for what this team needed... Another guy who can not stretch the court, I say the only way this can work is if we plan to use him more as a point than a SG, allowing Hill to shot from range. But either way would have rather enjoyed a move that could help bring in a true point with some range than Stuckey.

                                I also wish that we would have allowed Solomon Hill to get more PT..., what is the point of signing a senior, and letting him sit on the bench for 2 years, just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

                                I really wonder what the starting lineups will be though, there is a lot that can go on...
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X