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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
    http://www2.cincinnati.com/blogs/uc/...olar-athletes/


    Doesn't sound "actually really dumb" to me. I think sometimes people mistakenly equate not being well-spoken with not being intelligent. Lance may not be very well-spoken in front of cameras, but that doesn't mean he's an idiot.

    Also, the only time I've ever heard Lance referred to as "the Eighth Grader" was when I've heard people retell the story of an 8th grade Lance challenging OJ Mayo when Lance was in 8th grade and Mayo a HS junior.
    It's not his academic quality, it's his maturity. It hasn't changed in 10 years, why would it change now?

    Also what is Exploratory Studies? I would hope he gets a 4.0, if all he has to have is participation credit for attending class.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
      http://www2.cincinnati.com/blogs/uc/...olar-athletes/


      Doesn't sound "actually really dumb" to me. I think sometimes people mistakenly equate not being well-spoken with not being intelligent. Lance may not be very well-spoken in front of cameras, but that doesn't mean he's an idiot.

      Also, the only time I've ever heard Lance referred to as "the Eighth Grader" was when I've heard people retell the story of an 8th grade Lance challenging OJ Mayo when Lance was in 8th grade and Mayo a HS junior.
      I have nothing against Lance, I don't care if a basketball player can even read as long as he can play. But citing something like that is hilarious. Lance wasn't at UC to get an education and they didn't bring him in to educate him.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

        Who disregards simple stats like rebounding and assists? Only a handful of people on Pacers Digest. So to me, you guys just look hypocritical and out of touch.

        If I am wrong, explain to me how.
        No one is disregarding anything.

        If you say "Lance is a good shooter, look at his turnover rate!" is it disgarding his turnover rate to point out that turnovers don't measure shooting? No, it's not. That's what you're attempting to do with assists/turnovers. We've already given you MULTIPLE examples of bad decisions that wouldn't be measured by assists/fga.

        The explaination has been given to you a couple different ways.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
          What stats tell you a guy is a selfish stat chaser who cares about himself more than the team? That is the entire basis of your views and are only subjective arguments. There are no stats that support that which might be why people refuse to accept it. I would actually say that you have failed to provide a single statistic that supports any of your opinions of Lance Stephenson, in any way. Those stats just don't exist.
          You're right, they don't exist because there isn't a stat that measures bad decisions.

          Which is why I mentioned, to Bill, that IF assists are going to be used to show how Lance doesn't make bad decisions, then the fact that Lance's assists dropped after the ASG, the very time frame we're saying Lance changed out he played, would back up that position.

          So you either A) need to admit that assists don't track bad decisions or B) admit that Lance started making more bad decisions as his assists dropped.


          Can't have it both ways.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            Its really a 50/50 call. If Sheed can find a home then so can Lance. Obviously they are light years apart talent and skill set, but attitudes like Spreewell, Sheed, AI, and Arenas find a period that they produce and are worth the risk.

            Seeing that teams are not lining up for him and not because of his skill but his attitude....if that don't change you...then nothing will.
            For every Spree and Sheed there's a Ruben Patterson and JR Rider. I honestly don't fully think that Lance is anywhere near as bad as the latter, but I also don't think he's as talented as the former.

            For his sake, hopefully he is able to eat the humble pie and like it. Lance has been humbled (IMO) several times in the past however, and yet the same issues seem to arise. Most of the obstacles that Lance has endured from a pure basketball standpoint, have been self inflicted for the most part:

            (to name a few)
            HS Recruiting fiasco
            Being drafted in the second round despite having first round talent
            Driving down his FA market value with selfish play
            Going to a team that wasn't a good fit for his skills
            Driving down his current trade value with poor play/decisions

            How many times does a guy with supposedly so much talent, have to be humbled before he understands.
            Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-18-2014, 02:10 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Yes, if you play in the NBA then by definition you have defied the odds. Michael Jordan defied the odds since most guys drafted third don't go on to become the greatest player ever. Still, it's undeniable fact that as the draft goes on, your odds of succeeding in the league become slimmer and slimmer. By the time you're at the 40th pick (where Lance was drafted), the odds of succeeding in the NBA are beyond tiny. For every Carlos Boozer, you're going to have 20 Darrington Hobsons (a guy picked a few picks before Lance).

              Sure a lot of guys drafted in the first round never become anything, but a hell of a lot more of them succeed than guys in the second round. The deck is severely stacked against second round picks making it. Lance defied the odds big time. He has plenty of things that he needs to work on, but the mere fact that he's been as successful as he has been as the 40th pick makes his career a smashing success even if it ended today. It wouldn't have happened without a lot of hard work. I would love to see what percentage of second rounders from 2000-2010 had careers as long as Lance has had. I bet it's tiny tiny tiny tiny amount.

              Another thing on this, Lance had first round talent. Him being taken in the second round had much more to do with off the court issues than it did on the court. It's not like he was a scrub that wasn't drafted because of lack of ability. The first round ability was there, he just needed to demonstrate that he could be a professional and a part of a team without causing issues.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Bill, I am not sure how you can be upset people don't accept stats that supposedly support your side of this argument when you aren't even making a stat based argument to begin with.

                And what is the difference between what you are complaining about and you guys knocking Lance's rebounding by saying he steals them, or his assists by saying he only makes the pass that leads to an assist, or claiming that George Hill will replace him by reverting back to 2012-13 George Hill? There is absolutely no difference. You disregard simple statistics even more than the other side disregards advanced stats.
                So, I guess we are doing all of this again.

                People tried using uncontested vs. contested rebounds for the "steals rebounds" issue. Tried to use usage rate and percent shots off of assists for the "only makes the pass if it's an assist" issue. Thus the comment about people just refusing to believe those stats - i.e. all rebounds are good rebounds, all assists are the best play and any non-assists are due to the shooter missing. People have tried showing video of both issues - well, it's cherry-picking so it doesn't count. The only thing valid would be to put up a video with every Lance possession for 2 years, annotated, with direct reference to the stats involved. I don't see anyone here on either side of the debate with the time or willingness to do that - and the whole point of using statistics is to keep from having to go through hundreds of hours of film to prove or disprove every hypothesis.

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Guess who else disregards advanced stats? Greg f'n Popovich.
                I present to you this. He himself doesn't study them, he has assistant coaches for that.

                http://www.48minutesofhell.com/gregg...ows-some-stats

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Who disregards simple stats like rebounding and assists? Only a handful of people on Pacers Digest. So to me, you guys just look hypocritical and out of touch.
                Did I say people were disregarding them? I've been saying people use them in isolation.

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                If I am wrong, explain to me how.

                What stats tell you a guy is a selfish stat chaser who cares about himself more than the team? That is the entire basis of your views and are only subjective arguments. There are no stats that support that which might be why people refuse to accept it. I would actually say that you have failed to provide a single statistic that supports any of your opinions of Lance Stephenson, in any way. Those stats just don't exist.
                That's the conclusion I reach based on the output of the stats. That's the WHOLE POINT of stats, to help you reach a conclusion. What else are they for?

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                "To me, the people on either side who invalidate evidence because it doesn't match their story, or who confuse impressions with facts, or who mix up statistics and the interpretation of statistics are the ones who get my goat. It causes things to get circular, leading to repeats."

                Wow. This is just a huge load. You have not once, EVER confronted an anti Lance poster for his views regarding Lance Stephenson, not once.
                Well, except like when I pointed out to Since86 that his interpretation of the assists as anti-Lance could be wrong. So, never ever except for just recently, I suppose, since I really don't want to go through every thread for the last 2 years and pull out examples.

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Then you complain about the thread going in a circle, while posting paraphrased, antagonistic responses in conversations you aren't even involved in.
                Because I was involved, very heavily, in the original discussions of passing only for an assist and usage rate. When it comes up Yet Again, I think I can point out that it is, in fact, coming up Yet Again.

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Geez.
                Louise.
                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


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Another thing on this, Lance had first round talent. Him being taken in the second round had much more to do with off the court issues than it did on the court. It's not like he was a scrub that wasn't drafted because of lack of ability. The first round ability was there, he just needed to demonstrate that he could be a professional and a part of a team without causing issues.
                  And pretty much this entire debate is for the same reason. So it isn't like he was drafted in the second round by a stroke of luck and proved his critics completely wrong. I'd be surprised if this doesn't parallel the exact debate in the Pacers' scouts and FO leading up to that draft.
                  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


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    Exum represents everything that's wrong with the NBA draft process. Exum had the choice to go to NCAA, where he would have had a chance to refine his game and get prepared for the NBA. He is from Australia, which isn't known for a high level of competition. However, Exum and his father thought he was ready for the NBA, and too good for NCAA basketball. Because he was a blowhard and egotistical, he missed out on the true breeding grounds of the NBA, which is NCAA and not Australia. As a result, he will probably be driving a cab for a living in 3 years or so
                    So... you hate Exum because he didn't help perpetrate the NCAA's near monopolistic hold on the NBA's talent pipeline? Because he dared to play in a foreign league outside of the NCAA's control?

                    Do you work for the NCAA by any chance?

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      Its really a 50/50 call. If Sheed can find a home then so can Lance. Obviously they are light years apart talent and skill set, but attitudes like Spreewell, Sheed, AI, and Arenas find a period that they produce and are worth the risk.

                      Seeing that teams are not lining up for him and not because of his skill but his attitude....if that don't change you...then nothing will.
                      There is a real difference between Sheed and Lance. Sheed was universally loved by the guys he played with. Easy to play with. All about the win and loss. Not a personal stat guy. The Sheed that was disliked was the Sheed off the court, the officials, fans and front office had problems with him. Not the guys he played with.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                        There is a real difference between Sheed and Lance. Sheed was universally loved by the guys he played with. Easy to play with. All about the win and loss. Not a personal stat guy. The Sheed that was disliked was the Sheed off the court, the officials, fans and front office had problems with him. Not the guys he played with.
                        Pretty sure that's not the case. Sheed has some pretty infamous run ins with his teammates in Portland. Threw a towel in the face of Sabonis during a game. There are many stories about him just picking up balls off the ball rack after practice and throwing them at other teammate's heads.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Question who would be untradable on this team for us to get back Lance other than PG in a multi player deal, just wondering.

                          Do you think if Lavoy was in the deal Bird would say no, or Solo?
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so





                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by Strummer View Post




                              I think it's a re-aggravation of a hidden injury from his time in Indiana...
                              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


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Aren't pelvic sprains something common with pregnant women?

                                I'm sure there's a joke in there just waiting to be written.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X