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 cdash View Post
    That whole Herb being okay with him coming back thing is funny, since, ya know, your whole stance has been that Simon put the kibash on the whole deal and he is the reason Lance isn't here. That entire article about him basically leaving it up to his basketball guys kind of flies in the face of an argument we had several pages back. You even presented evidence from 2008 to support your case. Good times, right?
    No. It could easily be a situation where Simon capped the offer amount the first time but is now saying that Larry is on his own for round two since the contract price is already set AND the terms are in the Pacers favor with the team option.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      If he had a problem with it, yeah, he probably would have squashed the rumor.
      Nobody has said Simon was unwilling to deal for Lance either in the past or now. He's just not signing a blank check.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        Would Herb actually say he has a problem bring Lance back to a reporter?
        Whatever he felt, he should have said "we don't comment on trade rumors." So kudos to Candace I guess for getting a proper response out of him, though it's going to cost him money

        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
        Are league owners exempt from tampering? I'm surprised Simon commented on another team's player.
        Nope, owners are not exempt. But the fine is something like 25k, so it's whatever I guess for Simon.

        Comment


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

          Worth considering that MJ might have too much pride -- the guy hates "losing" that much, even as a GM -- to deal Lance back to the Pacers?

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            Nope, owners are not exempt. But the fine is something like 25k, so it's whatever I guess for Simon.
            Tampering only exists for free agency. There's no tampering in trade scenarios - there's no player choice to sway.

            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
            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

              BillS: seems to apply whenever someone is under contract to another team. In fact, when a player is actually a free agent (and not before), tampering does not exist.

              http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q109

              Tampering is when a player or team directly or indirectly entices, induces or persuades anybody (player, general manager, etc.) who is under contract with another team in order to negotiate for their services. The NBA may impose suspensions and/or fines up to $50,000 if tampering is discovered, however the league's practice has been to wait until a team lodges a complaint before investigating (but that's not to say they don't continue to monitor the league and won't take action independently if they discover that tampering has occurred). Here are some examples:

              * The Miami Heat were discovered to have tampered with Pat Riley in 1995 by negotiating with Riley while he was the head coach of the New York Knicks. The Heat "settled," and avoided league-imposed penalties, by compensating the Knicks with $1 million and their first round draft pick in 1996.
              * After Will Perdue left San Antonio in the 1999 offseason to sign with Chicago, he commented to the press about the possibility of the Bulls signing Tim Duncan and/or Grant Hill in 2000. The league considered this to be tampering, and issued Perdue a warning.

              You may have noticed that when general managers and other team personnel talk to the press, they are careful to avoid talking about specific players who play for other teams. They do this in order to avoid tampering. The only allowed response when talking about players under contract with other teams is to decline comment.
              So ok, Simon is safe unless the Horcats complain.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                Worth considering that MJ might have too much pride -- the guy hates "losing" that much, even as a GM -- to deal Lance back to the Pacers?
                MJ is the one that started the conversations, so I don't think that would be an issue.

                Plus trading Lance isn't really a loss seeing how much both he and the team have struggled this year.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  BillS: seems to apply whenever someone is under contract to another team. In fact, when a player is actually a free agent (and not before), tampering does not exist.

                  http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q109



                  So ok, Simon is safe unless the Horcats complain.
                  Yeah, I wasn't clear due to being on the phone...

                  At any rate, he's still safe because it's not a negotiation with Lance outside of an allowed period. A trade doesn't constitute a player contact.

                  Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                  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

                    MEH...testing the waters? Seems that it would be smart for MJ to wait out the trades to the deadline. It would appear he could get a better deal then....unless Lance is being a real cancer.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Yeah, I wasn't clear due to being on the phone...

                      At any rate, he's still safe because it's not a negotiation with Lance outside of an allowed period. A trade doesn't constitute a player contact.

                      Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                      Hmm, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

                      NBA tampering means officials of one team can't comment on players on another team. "The only allowed response when talking about players under contract with other teams is to decline comment."

                      It doesn't involve negotiation with the player, just commenting on him. For example, Drake (a Raptors ambassador) was fined for tampering because he mentioned Durant in one of his concerts. Durant is under contract with OKC for 2 more seasons, so he's not a FA by any stretch of definition. I mean, Lance will potentially be a FA at the same time Durant is.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        Hmm, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

                        NBA tampering means officials of one team can't comment on players on another team. "The only allowed response when talking about players under contract with other teams is to decline comment."

                        It doesn't involve negotiation with the player, just commenting on him. For example, Drake (a Raptors ambassador) was fined for tampering because he mentioned Durant in one of his concerts. Durant is under contract with OKC for 2 more seasons, so he's not a FA by any stretch of definition. I mean, Lance will potentially be a FA at the same time Durant is.
                        Interesting. I guess it must be that teams seldom if ever complain when the player is involved in trade talks.

                        Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                        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 BlueNGold View Post
                          No. It could easily be a situation where Simon capped the offer amount the first time but is now saying that Larry is on his own for round two since the contract price is already set AND the terms are in the Pacers favor with the team option.
                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Nobody has said Simon was unwilling to deal for Lance either in the past or now. He's just not signing a blank check.
                          How much more do you think Larry wanted to give Lance if Simon is okay with 9 mill a year?? Larry has proven to be pretty good at what he does, I doubt he wanted to throw Lance way more than he is worth and Simon had to put the breaks on it.

                          Comment


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

                            http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...l#.VJA7mivF-hM


                            Fowler: The Charlotte Hornets should trade Lance Stephenson – now


                            By Scott Fowler
                            sfowler@charlotteobserver.com

                            Posted: Monday, Dec. 15, 2014





                            Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#storylink=cpy

                            It is time for the Charlotte Hornets to cut their losses on the Great Lance Stephenson Experiment.

                            Dealing Stephenson won’t be easy, for everyone in the NBA has seen how disjointed the Hornets have become since he arrived. But it’s something the Hornets need to do.
                            The Hornets took a chance on Lance. It failed. Time to bail.

                            Trade him.

                            Charlotte is a worse team with Stephenson on the court than without him, which is bizarre but absolutely true in the Hornets’ current incarnation.

                            The primary problem is Stephenson needs the ball on offense – a lot – to get into a rhythm. But Kemba Walker is a “score-first” point guard who also needs the ball to be effective. And Al Jefferson needs the ball down low. And there’s only one ball. And when Stephenson doesn’t have it, he seems somewhat lost.

                            Jefferson and Walker are the best players on this Hornets team, which fell to 6-18 after losing 97-88 to Cleveland Monday night. Stephenson was supposed to be the third Musketeer, but instead he has careened from one extreme to another on the court. League sources say the Hornets are actively shopping Stephenson – with Indiana and Brooklyn the most likely landing places – but nothing is imminent. It might stay that way for a while, for Charlotte is negotiating from a position of severe weakness.

                            If you looked at Stephenson’s individual statistics, you wouldn’t know how badly the experiment has gone. Although he can’t shoot a lick from 3-point range – Stephenson was 8-for-48 for a horrid 16.7 percent entering the Cleveland game – he averages 10.4 points, 7.2 rebounds and five assists. Those are all respectable numbers.

                            But the key number is the Hornets’ record. They went 43-39 last season and made the playoffs as the No. 7 seed. Now they are so far below .500 it will be miraculous if they can find their way to another winning record this season.

                            When Stephenson is in the game, it looks awkward. He can’t stretch the floor as a shooter, which means Jefferson still draws double-teams. No one makes the other team consistently pay for that by making 3-pointers (Marvin Williams was supposed to help more with that than he has).

                            Often, coach Steve Clifford has benched Stephenson for entire fourth quarters, going instead with a better shooter such as Brian Roberts or Gary Neal. This, as you can imagine, has not gone over well with Stephenson, who is 24 and did not get the nickname “Born Ready” for picking up splinters on the bench.

                            Before the Hornets signed Stephenson in July, I wrote a column that began: “Not Lance Stephenson. Let’s start there, shall we?”

                            Then the Hornets ignored me, much like my kids do when I tell them it’s time for bed, and signed Stephenson to a three-year, $27.4 million contract. The third year of that deal is at the club’s option, so Stephenson’s contract is somewhat tradeable.

                            But the Hornets are going to have to take somebody else’s bad contract in return and quite possibly throw in a future first-round draft pick, too, to get any deal done. They shouldn’t be in “deal-at-any-cost” mode, and they shouldn’t release him outright. But they need to accept that this is a mess, and untangling it is going to require some work and some pain.
                            I’m not going to say, “I told you so,” because I haven’t been certain my original opinion was correct all this time. It certainly didn’t look that way during November when Stephenson banked in a 33-foot 3-pointer at the buzzer to beat Atlanta in double overtime.

                            But that lucky shot – and it was lucky, for no one banks a 33-footer on purpose – has not repeated itself. What has repeated itself, over and over, has been the Hornets losing and looking disorganized with Stephenson on the floor.

                            Listen, it’s not all Stephenson’s fault. Far from it. Losing Josh McRoberts during the offseason was a huge blow from which Charlotte has yet to recover. Stephenson and Williams combined have not had as much positive impact on the Hornets as McRoberts did last season.

                            I also understand that some people will say, “No, it’s too early. The Hornets haven’t even played a third of the season yet. Give it time.”

                            Maybe this relationship will improve with age. But I don’t see it. I see it as more likely that Stephenson becomes another Tyrus Thomas or Adam Morrison, buried on the end of the bench – another “seemed like a good idea at the time” player who didn’t help the win-loss record.

                            The difference is Stephenson is more talented than Morrison and has a less onerous contract than Thomas. So Stephenson could go somewhere else and play well again, like he did with Indiana last season when he had a more deferential point guard, played on a better team and led the NBA in triple-doubles.

                            But the chemistry between Charlotte and Stephenson is just not right. It’s like when two people go on a date and sort of admire each other from afar, but that’s it. The spark isn’t there. Best to let it go.

                            To make the chemistry work, Stephenson would need some new teammates and a new coach. And we’re not talking about Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant here. Stephenson is not a good enough player to reshape an entire franchise to suit his needs.

                            Eventually, Stephenson is going to have to go. Might as well be sooner rather than later.

                            Fowler: 704-358-5140; sfowler@charlotteobserver.com; Twitter: @scott_fowler


                            [
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-16-2014, 09:15 AM.

                            Comment


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

                              As much as I'm enjoying Lance floundering in Charlotte I'd say it's far too early to call the "experiment" a flat-out failure.

                              Comment


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

                                ^ Don't really disagree with that article.

                                Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                                As much as I'm enjoying Lance floundering in Charlotte I'd say it's far too early to call the "experiment" a flat-out failure.
                                Their best 3 perimeter players are MKG, Lance, and Kemba, none of whom are what anyone would call a good shooter. Something has to give. MKG is the obvious keeper in the bunch, being the youngest and probably the most well-rounded despite his bad jumper. And between Kemba and Lance, and it sounds like they want to keep Kemba.

                                Maybe it can get better with time, but that group is always going to have issues.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X