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 Pacerized View Post
    IMO very few teams wanted Lance in the offseason and even fewer would touch him now at that price. The most the Hornets could get would an expiring contract to a team willing to take a 2 year gamble with the abiltity to cut cut him after next season. If the Hornets wanted anything of value in return they'd have to throw in a first. As of today I think Lance is close to having a negative value to other teams. I certainly wouldn't give up a young prospect like Solo or any picks for Lance. I'd rather not have him unless it was for a deal we couldn't refuse like Watson and Scola for Lance and a first, then we could sign AJ and still be able to cut Lance if he didn't get it together by the end of year 2.
    I wondered about this myself, if he's trending towards a negative value with the contract length, even with the team option.

    It's probably way to early to determine if that is the case, but I certainly would see it trending that way.

    Comment


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

      OH and as far as Clifford, maybe he is a bad coach or whatever, but if a player isn't doing what you are asking him to do, you don't play them. I think thats completely acceptable even at the NBA level.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Speed View Post
        OH and as far as Clifford, maybe he is a bad coach or whatever, but if a player isn't doing what you are asking him to do, you don't play them. I think thats completely acceptable even at the NBA level.
        The problem here is that what you're doing as a coach has the team losing seven straight, the worst in the league aside from Philly. How long before the rest of the team gets tired of his pissing contest with Lance because it's costing them games? Is Clifford prepared to sacrifice the whole season to prove he's a hardass coach? Not that there's anything wrong with being tough on players. Pop's an example of that, but Pop uses tough love. He balances his toughness on every player equally, and he'll be the first to say it's a player's league. Pissing contests with players don't usually end up well for coaches, much less one year coaches vs 20 year old "cornerstones" (in MJ's words). That's what I find funny about this whole thing... Clifford has no problem saying Lance is unproven or whatever, that he's not a star yet, that he had a good year. What about him? Does one year make you a good coach? He didn't even win coach of the year and how many of those got canned the next year? Mike Brown, Byron Scott, George Karl... Clifford hasn't even proven he's up to their quality and these guys get criticism regularly, yet somehow Clifford earned this rep as one of the best coaches in the league.
        Last edited by Kuq_e_Zi91; 11-28-2014, 01:18 PM.
        2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
          I'm not so sure that Lance is going to be a Hornet by the trade deadline.
          Ok, but as we saw over the summer the market wasn't exactly white hot for Lance to begin with.


          Comment


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

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Is it really an agent's job to consider the basketball implications of a move? Agent's are financial guys, lawyers, and negotiators.

            It's Lance's job—and his trusted basketball advisors—to make a good decision based on his bball skill set. It's the agent's job to get him a good financial deal.
            Somehow the Stephenson team failed at both of these objectives.


            Comment


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

              If Clifford was JOB II, he'd be playing Lance at power forward and having him take 10 threes a game. No there is something here between Lance and Clifford specifically. Clifford has no prblem living through the same issues with Kemba and even MKG.


              Comment


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

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                I think the players like Lance. I also think that Lance's immaturity wore thin on guys over the course of a long NBA season. I have plenty of friends that are really cool guys and I like them, but if I were around them all the time, some of their personality traits would grate on me over time.
                Lance is your buddy who still texts you every morning even once you're way too old for it to tell you how waaay drunk he got last night, and how aaaaaawesome it was. No, I'm not saying Lance is drinking, but my point is he has those annoying tendencies....there is still a lot, too much, rucker park in his game, and while it is fun to watch, it is annoying as hell to play with. This isn't the damn playground anymore. These are millions of dollars at stake for these guys.

                Like I said, Lance makes the easy play hard and the hard play easy, but the guys who make the easy play hard are the most annoying people to play with.


                Comment


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

                  If the Pacers didn't want Lance back in the first place and the contract was all for show, then I don't think Lance will ever be a Pacer again.

                  If the Pacers did want Lance, then Lance basically gave them the finger on the way out the door, which in that case I think Lance would have to bring himself very humbly into Indy to ever be back on the Pacers.

                  The chances are slim to none. The bridge was burned and Lance getting booed in his return sealed the deal JMO


                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    Let some other team have the drama. As far as Solomon Hill, if you are willing to give YEARS to Lance to try and see if it works out maybe we could give Solomon a year maybe??
                    Solomon Hill is about 10x better in his second year than Lance was.


                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Solomon Hill is about 10x better in his second year than Lance was.
                      By what measurement? Is this really a fair comparison?

                      Lance started 1 game and played 442 minutes on the third best team in the East that took the eventual champs to six games.

                      Solo's the beneficiary of a hodgepodge of role players and castaways in a throwaway season. This is, by all accounts, his season-long tryout to see whether he sinks or swims. He's producing in large part because he's getting consistent minutes (500+ already) and a prominent role (started every game). Would Solo have played nearly 34 minutes a game on that 2012 team?
                      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                        By what measurement? Is this really a fair comparison?

                        Lance started 1 game and played 442 minutes on the third best team in the East that took the eventual champs to six games.

                        Solo's the beneficiary of a hodgepodge of role players and castaways in a throwaway season. This is, by all accounts, his season-long tryout to see whether he sinks or swims. He's producing in large part because he's getting consistent minutes (500+ already) and a prominent role (started every game). Would Solo have played nearly 34 minutes a game on that 2012 team?
                        Probably not, but Lance's 442 minutes that year were incredibly rough save a game against Atlanta in February I believe where he had like 12 points.....

                        Even if we compare year 3 Lance to year 2 Solo, I still think Solo is playing better and in a more expanded role than year 3 Lance had to deal with.


                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                          The problem here is that what you're doing as a coach has the team losing seven straight, the worst in the league aside from Philly. How long before the rest of the team gets tired of his pissing contest with Lance because it's costing them games? Is Clifford prepared to sacrifice the whole season to prove he's a hardass coach? Not that there's anything wrong with being tough on players. Pop's an example of that, but Pop uses tough love. He balances his toughness on every player equally, and he'll be the first to say it's a player's league. Pissing contests with players don't usually end up well for coaches, much less one year coaches vs 20 year old "cornerstones" (in MJ's words). That's what I find funny about this whole thing... Clifford has no problem saying Lance is unproven or whatever, that he's not a star yet, that he had a good year. What about him? Does one year make you a good coach? He didn't even win coach of the year and how many of those got canned the next year? Mike Brown, Byron Scott, George Karl... Clifford hasn't even proven he's up to their quality and these guys get criticism regularly, yet somehow Clifford earned this rep as one of the best coaches in the league.
                          I agree with a lot of what you said about Clifford. Only thing I disagree with is that I dont think they're losing games because Lance isn't playing in the 4th qtrs. When Lance is getting benched its typically after the opposing team has made a run while the Hornets are struggling. Lance is typically a part of that struggle (missing shots, holding the ball, etc) and for what ever reason is the main fall guy in Clifford's eyes.

                          I guess my point is, they're losing games when Lance plays a lot in the second half, and they're losing when he doesn't. In spite of the benchings, he still leads the team in minutes per game, so its not like he's lacking his chances to make an impact.

                          Edit: after playing 28mpg last game he's now second on the team in mpg behind kemba
                          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-28-2014, 01:57 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            Here's a 3rd question. Would you trade Solomon Hill for him right now?
                            Nope.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              I agree with a lot of what you said about Clifford. Only thing I disagree with is that I dont think they're losing games because Lance isn't playing in the 4th qtrs. When Lance is getting benched its typically after the opposing team has made a run while the Hornets are struggling. Lance is typically a part of that struggle (missing shots, holding the ball, etc) and for what ever reason is the main fall guy in Clifford's eyes.

                              I guess my point is, they're losing games when Lance plays a lot in the second half, and they're losing when he doesn't. In spite of the benchings, he still leads the team in minutes per game, so its not like he's lacking his chances to make an impact.

                              Edit: after playing 28mpg last game he's now second on the team in mpg behind kemba
                              I understand where you're coming from. Lance is pressing the issue and he probes for too long sometimes. Phil Jackson used to say you had two seconds to make a decision with the ball otherwise the defense gets time to react and recover. Safe to say, Lance violates that rule more often than not. He doesn't look comfortable so I think he overcompensates by dribbling and dribbling.

                              But let's take the last game, for example. The Hornets were still leading when Clifford reverted to benching Lance with 8 min left in the 3rd and the problems just spiraled from there. He decided to ride Brian Roberts (the hot hand), but the problem was Roberts had to guard Wes Matthews on the other end and the Blazers just exploited that every trip down. Midway through the 4th, the Hornets were way out of it.

                              So, my point is... whether Lance is the problem or not, whether he's helping or not, clearly benching him in the second half and not using him at all isn't the solution. Since he's one of your most talented players, he's someone you'd want out there to see if he can make something out of nothing. Cliff needs to find a way to pull the team out of this losing streak, and I think he'd be best served to not pin his hopes on a Brian Roberts hot shooting night while the summer's free agent prize grows increasingly frustrated on the pine.
                              2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                                I understand where you're coming from. Lance is pressing the issue and he probes for too long sometimes. Phil Jackson used to say you had two seconds to make a decision with the ball otherwise the defense gets time to react and recover. Safe to say, Lance violates that rule more often than not. He doesn't look comfortable so I think he overcompensates by dribbling and dribbling.

                                But let's take the last game, for example. The Hornets were still leading when Clifford reverted to benching Lance with 8 min left in the 3rd and the problems just spiraled from there. He decided to ride Brian Roberts (the hot hand), but the problem was Roberts had to guard Wes Matthews on the other end and the Blazers just exploited that every trip down. Midway through the 4th, the Hornets were way out of it.

                                So, my point is... whether Lance is the problem or not, whether he's helping or not, clearly benching him in the second half and not using him at all isn't the solution. Since he's one of your most talented players, he's someone you'd want out there to see if he can make something out of nothing. Cliff needs to find a way to pull the team out of this losing streak, and I think he'd be best served to not pin his hopes on a Brian Roberts hot shooting night while the summer's free agent prize grows increasingly frustrated on the pine.
                                Benching Lance AND THEN talking about it in the media is one of the worst ways Clifford could go about it. The first few tines he deflected pretty well. But this last conference he basically made it about Lance.

                                Though I Dont think benching Lance is costing them games, benchig him and then talking about why is a good way to lose a guy like Lance pretty quick.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X