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

Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

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

  • #31
    Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
    Huh? That's really convoluted.
    "He’s the one who held the locker room together as long as it was together,” Sloan said. “You’re losing the face of the team, great athlete, but your losing that glue guy in the locker room as well.”
    Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
    I think the only thing this really tells me is that when Paul George says "There wasn't any chemistry issues in the Locker room" he really means "I wasn't causing any chemistry issues in the locker room, and I wasn't about to pick a side either."
    It seems to be negative because it takes Sloan's quote, combines it with PGs statement on chemistry issues, and uses wording implying it meant PG said "It wasn't me!" and "I'm not telling the truth because there were really multiple sides against each other in the locker room."

    I was pretty sure it wasn't what was MEANT, which is why I stated it the way I did. However, given how anything said gets tossed down the rabbit hole around here, I wanted to point out how it could be taken before someone actually went full goose bozo on it.
    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


    • #32
      Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      It seems to be negative because it takes Sloan's quote, combines it with PGs statement on chemistry issues, and uses wording implying it meant PG said "It wasn't me!" and "I'm not telling the truth because there were really multiple sides against each other in the locker room."

      I was pretty sure it wasn't what was MEANT, which is why I stated it the way I did. However, given how anything said gets tossed down the rabbit hole around here, I wanted to point out how it could be taken before someone actually went full goose bozo on it.
      I prefer to take people's statements at face value so TinMan J's reading wouldn't occur to me. Just as I took PG's statement when asked whether he wanted Lance back and he said he didn't know, to mean he didn't know. These guys aren't politicians, they say pretty much what they mean.

      Paul is a good guy. Sloan's characterization of Paul rings true.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

        People hear what they want to hear. I will forever believe PG heard the question as "Will Lance be back" and that was what he was answering.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          People hear what they want to hear. I will forever believe PG heard the question as "Will Lance be back" and that was what he was answering.
          The only way I will believe that is if the next time I see PG he's wearing a hearing aid.
          Last edited by speakout4; 08-05-2014, 05:42 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
            The only way I will believe that is if the next time I see PG he's wearing a hearing aid.
            The context of his entire answer, let alone expecting him to be that direct that he'd actually say something negative in that setting tells me all I need to know. Needing a hearing aid would have nothing to do with it. Live in that room there's all kinds of chatter and distractions going on. He basically answered the gist of the question anyway.

            IMHO PG simply was not going to say "I don't know" to a question of whether he wanted Lance back this season. I don't think he'd even be likely to expect that question. But a question of whether Lance will be back? Yeah... I could see him answering that "I don't know". Because he didn't know.

            And didn't we later learn that PG had stayed in touch with Lance throughout the FA process? Why would he do that if he didn't want him back?

            The only thing that really makes sense when everything is put into context is that PG was answering the question as "Will Lance be back?". That makes more sense than him answering in a politically incorrect manner in that setting and dissing Lance by saying he didn't know if he wanted him back. Although if you want to believe Lance was the sole or largest problem last season then of course you'll hear it differently and the way you want to hear it to confirm your assumptions. It's all human nature. We'll never convince each other our version isn't the only correct interpretation.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

              BBall---He was tired and uncomfortable, he didn't expect that kind of direct personal question and he flubbed it. He had a chance to say he heard the question incorrectly but he didn't. PG got caught just like many public figures say flip things that they regret. Saying that he didn't know whether he wanted him back does not say Lance was the worst person in the locker room. He might not have wanted others back as well. At any rate Lance is gone this season and many of us regret that so what PG really said or meant to say doesn't matter.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                I ask this in all honesty of you "lance was the problem" people.

                Do you think Larry Bird has no understanding of locker room and player dynamics? I am not asking that as an accusation even though it probably comes off that way, I am asking that honestly because I just don't understand why if Lance was the sole or even the largest problem from last seasons team why did Larry not address it last year when the team was collapsing right in front of him and certainly why would he make such a production of publicly offering Lance a contract and then acting disappointed when he didn't accept it.

                I know some conspiracy people are going to claim that Larry offered him a contract he knew he wouldn't accept but I am sure that if that were the case he would not have made such a public display of meeting with Lance on July 1 @ midnight.

                I think he wanted Lance back, so that brings me back to the main question. Does Larry just not understand the bench dynamics or does he not care?
                I believe lance was a big part not the only problem but larry did say at least something when he told lance to tone down his antics against the heat. Lance obviously didn't care what bird told him by his actions.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I am one who believes that lance was the problem. Not the only problem and maybe not Lance's fault to a large degree.

                  Larry was fully and 100% aware of the problems that stemmed from lance.

                  But larry still wanted him back. He probably figures that a very talented young player like Lance was worth it and that in the long run Lance likely would outlast many of the other players on the roster not named Paul George. So lets make lance a good contract offer. If he accepts, great, if he doesn't well we move on.

                  Larry probably also figured that lance would outgrow a lot of his issues.

                  So yes Larry wanted him back. But on a scale of 1-10 - 10 being wanting him back like PG. And 1 wanting him back like ET. Larry probably wanted him back about a 6.

                  I put it this way. Lance would have gotten us 10 wins this season if he were here - with his talent. But he would have cost us 6 wins with his antics and chemistry issues he causes. So he might be a net plus of 4 (just using numbers to make my point. with a net plus like that you pay 7.8m, not 10 m.

                  I figure this is what Larry believes it is what I believe. The way Larry handled it is reasonable.
                  I think this post is pretty spot on, but I'd upgrade Larry interest from a 6 to a 7. Bird wanted Lance back, to the point where the Pacers' Organization made a movie about his road to the pros, but it never appeared that Larry did seemingly everything in his power to bring back Lance with reckless abandonment. He made him a competitive offer and left the ball in Lance's court.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I think he wanted Lance back, so that brings me back to the main question. Does Larry just not understand the bench dynamics or does he not care?
                    Honestly, I don't think that Larry cares about that. His job as a GM is to bring in as much talent as possible and that's what he's trying to do. That's what the Granger trade indicated.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Honestly, I don't think that Larry cares about that. His job as a GM is to bring in as much talent as possible and that's what he's trying to do. That's what the Granger trade indicated.
                      If Larry doesn't care about how players interact and fit he isn't a good GM and is just lucky to have accidentally fell into having a good group together. Players don't need to be best friends, but they do need to be able to get along.

                      Speakout4 I disagree, players often do play the part of politician. This is why Paul said there was no lockerroom problem, while everything else everyone else has said has either directly said there was an issue or hinted at an issue. They aren't as good as politicians usually, but for the most part players try to stick to the company line. Occasionally you will catch one off guard and they will say something stupid. Most of the time though they try to say something completely uncontroversial.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                        I think Larry definitely wanted Lance back on HIS terms at HIS price whether it be a short term or long term deal, Larry wanted to dictate the cost.

                        At the same time, I think Larry was more than a little ticked when Lance completely blew off his direction through the media to cut the on court antics out. The Bird Cage was a weird thing too, though I'm not sure it actually meant anything, just Lance being Lance.

                        I also think Larry's comments about being disappointed/surprised that Lance didn't re-sign here were made from a logical stand point. Larry is a bit old school in this way. Remember these contract numbers that Larry throws around to players are more than any player of larry's generation could have even dreamed of receiving in an entire career. So to Larry Lance's decision should have been simple. Larry offered Lance the most total money and the best team, so to Larry's logical brain that's a no brainer decision, take the most money and take the better team. Lance however thinks more emotionally which is something I just don't think Larry can connect with from a business sense, Larry can connect with it on the court, but off the court Larry is a logical thinker when it comes to this kind of stuff, so he probably doesn't understand on that level what would make Lance be attracted to Charlotte's offer in the first place, it was less overall money from a team that at the time was worse than one the Lance was on. This disconnect IMO lead to Larry's comments of surprise and disappointment that lance did not accept the offer, I think in Larry's mind (and I agree with him) Lance had made a poor decision for Lance so that is why Larry was disappointed.

                        Hopefully that makes some sense, and obviously just my opinion.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Honestly, I don't think that Larry cares about that. His job as a GM is to bring in as much talent as possible and that's what he's trying to do. That's what the Granger trade indicated.
                          You forgot about the time a few years ago when Larry said that there was a problem player in the locker room that was going to get removed and then we ended up trading Brandon Rush.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            People hear what they want to hear. I will forever believe PG heard the question as "Will Lance be back" and that was what he was answering.
                            I believe that too. I don't think Paul and Lance had any problem. I think they could have co-existed. I think the problems were elsewhere perhaps between more than one player. Also we so rarely hear about West in any of this could be telling or it could be nothing. I love West's game and I think overall he's got a great attitude, but he definitely seems to be a perfectionist to me, which isn't a bad thing, but let's be honest he wasn't exactly perfect down the stretch and I wonder if occassionally he would pass the blame too quickly. That's total speculation, but I get the feeling that off the court West is the guy who is most disconnected from the rest of the team.

                            Though at the same time, you rarely saw Lance, Hill, and Roy in the same place at the same time and usually Lance was the odd man out. It's all speculation and we may never know the real answer and honestly I don't care at this point, it's in the past and all the players, the team, and the fans need to move on at some point, but I do think it's worth speculating about in the summer at least. Something happened in that locker room that much seems certain.


                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              If Larry doesn't care about how players interact and fit he isn't a good GM and is just lucky to have accidentally fell into having a good group together. Players don't need to be best friends, but they do need to be able to get along.
                              My wording was a bit harsh. I don't really believe that he doesn't care but I do believe that he doesn't care about it as much as he should care.

                              Originally posted by Gold View Post
                              You forgot about the time a few years ago when Larry said that there was a problem player in the locker room that was going to get removed and then we ended up trading Brandon Rush.
                              I started following the NBA during the lock-out season so I wasn't here when that happened.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Sloan says PG "the one that kept the locker room together as long as it was together" via 8pts9secs

                                Originally posted by Gold View Post
                                You forgot about the time a few years ago when Larry said that there was a problem player in the locker room that was going to get removed and then we ended up trading Brandon Rush.
                                I can't recall exactly who said it but I remember it was D.Jones that was the problem, imo brandon asked for a trade due to JOB, then Vogel took over but was still traded

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X