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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
    While VERY true, as UB said - the offer was still on the table long after CJ and other FA's signed. We honestly don't know what the deadline meant. But I do agree, it is not typical practice.

    I wonder if the terms of the deadline were : "We will give you until this date before we sign any other players, but once this date has passed we will look to fill out the rest of our roster, and the terms of your contract will change ever so slightly accordingly"

    This entire situation has been kind of weird to be honest. Given the comments by both Bird and Lance during the season, the playoffs, and prior to FA - I always thought Lance was here to stay.
    Maybe Lance, his Father and his Agent/Laywer considered it a "deadline" in the traditional sense ( as in, "take it or leave it" and thus taken harshly and as disrespect ) while not looking at it the way that you and others looked at it ( you have "X" amount of time to get a better offer by that time but if you don't, the offer will be on the table but there will be little wiggle room cuz we are going to start signing Players ).

    I know that I am making HUGE ASSUMPTIONS here and throwing stuff at the wall ( like everyone else is ), but maybe there was context that Lance's side didn't fully understand.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
      The minimum roster is 13 players. We could have cut Sloan and or Scola and not worried about minimum replacements.
      If we cut Sloan and Scola and signed Lance we would have been at 9 players, still needing four players to meet that minimum.

      Comment


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

        I see it this way: the Pacers offered a three year deal, but at or just under the Hornets offer. Ordinarily, Lance would choose the Pacer offer, especially if he was excited about being a Pacer for the next three years.

        In reality, he probably wasn't all that excited. He would have always remained under PG's shadow on the perimeter, he had some bumbling bigs to pass to, and the Pacers style of offense isn't really his best style (neither is Charlotte's but arguably it's a bit better).

        So I'm thinking that if the Pacers had offered a decent size more money than Charlotte, Lance may have stayed. But given all the factors, he bolted.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          It was too late when? When do you think the Pacers offered the shorter deals? Pacers agreed to terms with CJ on July 2nd. Lance said it was when the Pacers agreed to terms with CJ that he knew he was leaving.
          It had to be after July 2nd obviously and he said those deals were nonsense.

          Comment


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

            In the end, Lance chose for himself. He used free will to leave, he was not strong armed out of the state of Indiana. Let him go, if he loves you half as much as you love him, he'll come back.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
              In the end, Lance chose for himself. He used free will to leave, he was not strong armed out of the state of Indiana. Let him go, if he loves you half as much as you love him, he'll come back.
              Well said sir, well said.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                Yes, what Ace said below you is mainly true, but the thread I posted that in has since been (rightly) merged into this one. That being said, I don't see why this stuff matters. Who cares? It happened, learn from it and move on.
                If theres uncertainty about some important things that happenned then how can you really learn from it and reach the right conclusions?
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                  Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                  If theres uncertainty about some important things that happenned then how can you really learn from it and reach the right conclusions?
                  There's your first lesson. Make sure everything is clear and on the table. Allow no room for uncertainty.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                    Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                    If theres uncertainty about some important things that happenned then how can you really learn from it and reach the right conclusions?
                    I think those that want it to be let go and forgotten about, don't see it to be as important as those that wish to continue to harp on it.

                    To some, losing Lance was a franchise altering type of move. They truly believe Lance is a special, all star type of talent that could have helped lead us to the promise land. To others, losing Lance was the equivalent to losing a guy like Jarrett Jack a few years ago. A good starter with good qualities, but not a guy you overpay - especially when there are potential questions about his chemistry with other teammates.

                    At the end of the day - Lance is the first valuable FA that the Pacers have lost in a long while. We tend to keep our own, and let go of players that are not in our future plans. Lance was Larry's baby, and it was a surprise to most if not everyone the day that he put ink the the Hornets offer and left the Pacers. So the constant conversation is somewhat understandable - until you look through most of PD's threads for the past year and a half and realize how much conversation, arguing, etc has been made about the guy. In all my years of reading and eventually posting on this site, I've never seen so much back and forth over a player.

                    I'll admit that I've been one of the main individuals that continue's to speculate, argue, etc - but only to dissolve the theme that our FO is completely to blame for the fact that Lance did not re-sign.
                    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-24-2014, 05:14 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      It doesn't bother anyone else that Lance's team apparently actively tried to make two guys lose their jobs? I understand it from his camp, but you'd assume he knew they were doing that and was cool with it.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        It doesn't bother anyone else that Lance's team apparently actively tried to make two guys lose their jobs? I understand it from his camp, but you'd assume he knew they were doing that and was cool with it.
                        but they aren't as talented as Lance. so eff them

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                          If theres uncertainty about some important things that happenned then how can you really learn from it and reach the right conclusions?
                          The "learn from it" was really more for the Pacers front office, and a blanket comment for things that happened in the past that are beyond our present control. What can we, as fans, learn from it that will help in the future? Nothing that I can see. I get it though it was a big deal people like talking about it there's a lot of stuff at play, I'm personally just tired of it and would rather talk about the players on our team.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            The "learn from it" was really more for the Pacers front office, and a blanket comment for things that happened in the past that are beyond our present control. What can we, as fans, learn from it that will help in the future? Nothing that I can see. I get it though it was a big deal people like talking about it there's a lot of stuff at play, I'm personally just tired of it and would rather talk about the players on our team.
                            Start a thread on it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                              Originally posted by cdash
                              Thanks. Or you could take you Lance **** to the Hornets forum? As long as we are making smartass responses.
                              I've already joined the Hornets forum...I am now scouting the competition...;<)

                              Seriously though, just ignore the thread. The Admins have done a pretty good job merging them. I've never seen so many posters want to extinguish all discussion on a topic...yet participate more than any of those who want to discuss it. Just look at this page.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I've already joined the Hornets forum...I am now scouting the competition...;<)

                                Seriously though, just ignore the thread. The Admins have done a pretty good job merging them. I've never seen so many posters want to extinguish all discussion on a topic...yet participate more than any of those who want to discuss it. Just look at this page.
                                The caps comment was made when it wasn't merged with this thread. There's also the "LORD HELP THE PACERS" thread which is essentially the same discussion as is happening here. I don't mind talking about Lance, I just don't think rehashing the circumstances of his departure really matters at this point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X