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 Hater Thread

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    While I despise the term "hater", there is a point where it leaves the realm of critical analysis and becomes a constant attempt to defend one's own view of a player's faults while believing that acknowledging any positives would undermine the cause.

    There's also this idea that anyone who defends a player against criticism must be a "sunshiner fanboy" (a term I also despise). And, yes, there's a point where players can do no wrong for some people. However, for the most part, recent months have been filled far, far more with criticism and defense than blind praise and reality checks.

    I think the way this board perceives the Pacers has everything to do with what is freshest in their minds. Obviously during the first half of last season everything was roses and dandelions. People started to get emotionally invested in this team and really started to buy into our chances to not only knock off Miami, but possibly win the NBA title.

    During the second half of the season we just imploded. Roy turned many people off with his "selfish dudes" comment, Lance started playing for statistics and money, West had some baffling quotes towards the end of the season, PG let off the court issues affect his play on the court, and when you add the way this team collapsed in late regular season games such as home vs. Atlanta and @ Miami (without Wade) it is understandable that people became disillusioned.

    In one season we went from thinking we were true contenders into morphing into many of the characteristics of teams that many of us despised. I can't blame a fan for being down on these guys to some extent following the end of this season, sorry I can't. I will get on board with you and state that some of the opinions about what should happen to the team might not be totally rational and over the top. Trust me, I get that. But at the same time we (as fans) just got metaphorically punched in the stomach. I think with the way things ended there is some warranted skepticism and "show me" that fans will have toward this group.

    Some people are eternal optimists (and boy do I envy you), while some are pessimists. I like to think I am a realist. The fact remains we added a few role players and lost our starting two guard who played an integral role on our team (for better or worse) for several years. How this will all shake out? Who knows.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      If you're gonna throw out these stats, why not factor in usg? Why not think about what the player is asked to do within the offense?

      I understand these statistics better than most people on here and I don't even think about them unless they are brought up. Why? Because I have lived in the gym since I was a small kid and know the game like the back of my hand. Your side just uses any stat you can find, all the time. You have no understanding of what they mean at all. And it's clear because you are always just using the ones that suit you. You aren't looking for an answer, you are looking for confirmation of your opinion and you use them accordingly. That is not how they work and is the flaw in having so many of them. Any opinion can find a statistic that supports it.

      Example.....

      On one hand, Atlanta and Denver only got a few extra possessions a quarter, and it's not significant.

      But George Hill scoring 4 more points a game and getting an extra .6 shots a quarter (the difference between 2012-13 and last season and the whole premise of your argument) is greatly significant, and it's gonna fix our stagnant offense. It deserves to be talked about in every Lance thread it is so important.

      C'mon man. This stuff is so lame.

      Here is a fact about George Hill and turnovers.

      90% of the time, George Hill brought the ball up across half court, gave it to PG or Lance, and went to the corner. Why wouldn't he have low turnovers?

      Lance on the other hand, was asked to create his own shot, he was the guy that was given the ball against pressure defense, he was the guy asked to create something with the shot clock running down, so........why wouldn't he have more, even a lot more? George Hill has never been asked to do any of that. He has always been asked to do the same thing. Bring it up, and give it to someone else. Run a pick and roll occasionally, and spot up for threes. They don't have similar roles and never have. In 2012 Lance was still the same guy asked to do the same things he did last year, he was just called on less to do it, because of his lack of experience.

      And somebody next year is gonna be asked to do those same things Lance does, and they are gonna have to be VERY good to replace him adequately. We are gonna face the same obstacles, and we are gonna have to find a solution. Last year, Lance was our solution to pressure defense. You think the game is as simple as player A has this many and player B has this many. Well it's not. And removing Lance isn't gonna automatically fix the turnover issue, that's ridiculous. Lance was our best player at moving without the ball and our best ball handler, and you honestly think we are better equipped to take care of the ball now? You can't add and subtract your way to success Eleazar. Lance wasn't the reason all these other players struggle with pressure and movement. It is their own talent that is the problem there.



      This is an endless debate with your side on this issue. And it's truly pointless. And I'm growing bored with it tbh. I'd much rather talk with people who actually know me and my history with the game, and realize I do have better knowledge than most because of that history and have some respect for that. It is much more enjoyable than trying to convince some dude watching on tv with bbref bookmarked on his browser and have to constantly explain to him what "create your own shot" means or why George Hill doesn't turn it over much. This stuff is basketball common sense.

      Ya'll can sit here and think I have no clue what I am talking about if you want, but you're wrong. I have always been an unpopular poster on here because I have my own opinion and do not fallow the mass way of thinking, EVER. And I'm not afraid to speak my mind or take on anyone in a debate. And like I said before, my post history speaks for itself.

      This is gonna be my last post on the Lance issue until the season starts.



      Being good at creating your own shot means the other team has to game plan for you, consider double teaming you, because you can't be guarded by one player, CONSISTENTLY. Not once or twice or even 10 times a year, but game in game out.
      So by your definition, creating your own shot has nothing to do with actually creating your own shot. So David West can create his own shot just fine then right?

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
        So by your definition, creating your own shot has nothing to do with actually creating your own shot. So David West can create his own shot just fine then right?
        What?
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          What?
          You said creating your own shot means you draw double teams, which doesn't decide whether you can create your own shot or not, but thats what you said. Well you know who draws double teams a lot in the post? David West. So by your definition, David West is a shot creator no?

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
            Maybe because not everyone is wired to think with their heart.

            Conversely some people on here are such sunshiner fanboys than any bit of critical analysis is interpreted as "hating".
            I can understand that and I honestly have no problem with people being critical, realistic, and having a different opinion. My issue is with the ones refuse to believe that anything else except failure is a possibility next season because of Lance Stephenson not being on the team. While I believe certain players will step their games up and we'll be a better team from top to bottom, I do realize that it's possible we could be significantly worse.

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

              I don't really care if George Hill can put up stats similar to what Lance put up, because it's not as if we traded Lance for George Hill. Hill was on the team last year and while his stats will likely rise, he won't be good enough to make up for Lance's lost stats on top of giving us the stats he gave us last year. In other words, even if Hill duplicates Lance's 14 stats, then that means someone else has to pick up Hill's lost stats since Hill can't make up for both players (unless he all of the sudden averages 24 PPG).

              The issue isn't Hill as much as it Stuckey and Miles. Those are the guys who have to make up the lost production. They are decent players, but I'm skeptical after seeing all of the massive disappointments that we've had in recent years.

              Comment

              Working...
              X