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 Pacergeek View Post
    Did Lance's agent make less money from the Charlotte contract?
    I'm not a 100%, but I think it's done as a percentage and done yearly, with the NBA capping at 3%. That would mean he's making about $52,000 more a year per year over the next 3 years
    Danger Zone

    Comment


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

      100 pages

      Comment


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

        Youch.

        http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...henson-problem

        Why Stephenson is a problem
        Offseason addition a major factor in Charlotte's lackluster record this season
        By Tom Haberstroh | ESPN Insider

        On the Sunday before Thanksgiving, Lance Stephenson was begging for answers in front of a Miami crowd.

        Al Jefferson had missed a potential game-winning layup against the Heat after Kemba Walker dribbled around in an effort to get the big fella the ball. During the possession, Stephenson could be seen waving his hands wildly for the rock, but he never got it. After the buzzer sounded, Stephenson turned to his bench in frustration and held out his hands for several seconds, gesturing to his teammates, "Why didn't I get the ball?"

        Steve Clifford gave his answer after the game when I asked the coach about the balancing act of late-game touches.

        "To be truthful, Lance has never been a closer," Clifford said outside the locker room. "That would be a new role for him."

        After Stephenson's passive-aggressive outburst that Sunday, Clifford benched the Hornets' big offseason signing over the next two fourth quarters. Then Clifford went on to candidly say that Stephenson is "not a star." Since then, the Hornets have lost another two games, including a laugher in Atlanta that saw the Hornets trailing by as much as 44 points at one point. The Hornets found out real quick that Stephenson isn't a star. The much-hyped New York City backcourt with the addition of Stephenson next to Walker was supposed to bring the purple and teal back in style, but there hasn't been much substance in a 4-14 start.

        Statistically, the Walker-Stephenson combo is among the worst backcourts in the league, if not the worst. Oh, and the Charlotte front office just handed them a combined $75 million this summer. Talk about a buzzkill. How bad has Stephenson been? Let's take a deeper look.

        After striking out on Gordon Hayward this summer in free agency, the Hornets set their eyes on the volatile Stephenson and lured him away from Indiana with a three-year, $27 million contract. To Clifford's credit, Stephenson isn't getting paid like a star; his $9 million salary this season ranks 73rd in the NBA behind other wings such as Jeff Green, DeMar DeRozan and Tyreke Evans. And Stephenson can come off the books in 2016 when he can opt out of his contract and fetch a longer-term deal when the new TV deal kicks in.

        The contract isn't an albatross by any stretch, but Stephenson has always been a bit overrated by his triple-double totals. He famously led the league last season in that category, totaling five such games while the Pacers went on to nab the No. 1 seed in the East. Many thought he deserved to be an All-Star. Our obsession over a player reaching an arbitrary double-digit threshold in three categories inflated Stephenson's reputation beyond his actual on-court value.

        Despite all the box-score-filled nights, Stephenson's PER last season was below average at 14.7 and he ranked 19th at his position in real plus-minus. Stephenson's rap as a board-stealer isn't helped by the fact that the Pacers were actually a better rebounding team when he hit the bench. To be more specific, Roy Hibbert averaged 9.2 rebounds per 36 minutes with Stephenson on the bench, but that dropped to 7.8 per 36 minutes when Stephenson took the floor. Not coincidentally, Hibbert's rebounding numbers are right back where they were before Stephenson's breakout season.

        Stephenson is getting exposed in Charlotte. His PER has fallen to a dreadful 10.5 and the Hornets have been outscored by 8.4 points every 100 possessions with him on the floor. He's shooting an abysmal 18.4 percent (7-of-38) from downtown, dropping his overall field goal percentage to 36.7 percent. He's missed 23 of his 27 catch-and-shoots from 3-point land according to SportVU player tracking, and defenses are camping out in the paint as he frequently tries to crossover an imaginary on-ball defender.

        "The big thing about closing is that it's about range shooting," Clifford said. "If they go under [the pick-and-roll in ball-handler coverage], it's hard to play through guys late. They go under on [Stephenson]. He knows that. In this league, they guide you where you can shoot from."

        Indeed, the Hornets have struggled to score with the game on the line. They're 3-7 in the 10 games that the margin has been within three points in the final minute. The offense has sputtered to an offensive efficiency of 84.1 points every 100 possessions. We remember the time Stephenson hit the game-winning 3 over the Hawks on Nov. 3, but that's his only make in those clutch situations this season. And he banked it in off the backboard. Hooray?

        But this goes deeper than fourth quarter. It'd be one thing if Stephenson's vast struggles didn't affect his teammates, but it's hard to ignore that Walker has regressed this season next to his new teammate. In a rare feat, Walker has seen his efficiency hit rock bottom (45.2 percent true shooting) along with a career-low usage rate (22.8 compared to 25.8 percent last season). Usually, we see the opposite trend between efficiency and usage as players can weed out the low-percentage shots with smaller scoring burdens.

        The Hornets' backcourt was supposed to be a strength, but it's clear that the Walker-Stephenson partnership isn't working. In fact, the Hornets have scored just 98.4 points per 100 possessions with the Walker-Stephenson tandem on the court, which is the worst scoring output for any backcourt with at least 300 minutes together. Take a look at the chart below.

        Yes, the Hornets have produced fewer points with Walker and Stephenson on the floor than the Orlando Magic have with rookie Elfrid Payton and Evan Fournier (100.4). The Magic don't have an Al Jefferson on their team. The Hornets have one of the most dominant scorers in the league and they still can't put together a functional offense.

        Not all of that is on Stephenson, of course. The Hornets desperately lack a 3-point spacer on the wing who can decongest the offense. Marvin Williams hasn't relieved the pressures enough and they miss Josh McRoberts' playmaking on the perimeter. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist can help as an off-ball cutter, but he's not ready to be a sharpshooter even with his revamped mechanics thanks to assistant coach Mark Price.

        But Stephenson has had a big hand in the crunched offense. He can't shoot and he hasn't been able to score off the dribble. According to Synergy tracking, Stephenson has scored just 26 points on 41 isolation plays, making him the least efficient high-volume isolation player in the game. Nothing is more deflating for an offense than a dribble-drive that goes nowhere. Rather than seeing Stephenson's playmaking improve the offense, the Hornets rank 27th in points per possession, worse than last season's 24th ranking.

        Indeed, the Hornets have faced a difficult schedule with three of their past four games against West powerhouses in the Clippers, Blazers and Warriors. They've had the fourth-toughest schedule in the NBA thus far, but much of that is because they can't play themselves. Things should lighten up over the next week with home tilts against the Boston Celtics and New York Knicks. They need to get Stephenson back on track, because they don't have many options on the roster. The Hornets may have made an offseason splash by signing Stephenson, but so far they're drowning with him in the fold.
        Last edited by docpaul; 12-03-2014, 02:30 PM.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by docpaul View Post
          According to Synergy tracking, Stephenson has scored just 26 points on 41 isolation plays, making him the least efficient high-volume isolation player in the game.
          I mean... I just...

          Comment


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


            Clifford has to be the worst coach in the league. I really feel bad for anyone who has to work for somebody with that kind of passive aggressive attitude, it's total ********. I can't recall a coach in recent memory who spouted and/or displayed such vitriolic idiocy. And he continues to make his team suffer to pursue his agenda.


            It's impossible to justify publicly humiliating a guy who is shooting .367 from the field (career .45%, expected to even out) when you have nothing bad to say about your star player, a guy who is shooting .364 (career average of .396, in other words expected to improve, but a terrible shooter) and is a mediocre at best defender.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              100 pages
              Am I the only one around here who is at 50 pages? I hate having to sift through a million pages of posts. I'd rather have as many as I can on one page.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                Clifford has to be the worst coach in the league. I really feel bad for anyone who has to work for somebody with that kind of passive aggressive attitude, it's total ********. I can't recall a coach in recent memory who spouted and/or displayed such vitriolic idiocy. And he continues to make his team suffer to pursue his agenda.


                It's impossible to justify publicly humiliating a guy who is shooting .367 from the field (career .45%, expected to even out) when you have nothing bad to say about your star player, a guy who is shooting .364 (career average of .396, in other words expected to improve, but a terrible shooter) and is a mediocre at best defender.
                It's Clifford's fault for speaking the truth? If Lance wasn't playing like one of the worst players in the league, he probably wouldn't have said any of those things.

                Comment


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

                  What is the solution, if talking privately to Lance doesn't do anything and criticizing him publically is too meanie?
                  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 Since86 View Post
                    What is the solution, if talking privately to Lance doesn't do anything and criticizing him publically is too meanie?
                    Realize the problem is Everyone Else?
                    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

                      3 weeks ago Clifford was the perfect coach for Lance he was going to give him the tough love Frank never did, now he is taking blame for Lance's play. Same story, different year, different team on that front. The only one who can fix how Lance plays the game is himself. It can work in certain situations, but not all.


                      Comment


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

                        Why doesn't Clifford call out Kemba Walker? Not that Kemba has ever done anything to be treated as a "star" player. Kemba isn't even a borderline all-star
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          That goes both ways though.... Pacers wanted to win too and apparently stood pretty firm thinking they had the best offer on the table.
                          Yeah, but Lance's side was the one who had the info with what was happening with other teams. There's no way that a real agent lets Larry Bird twist in the wind like that. The Pacers were firm.....with a very nice offer.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Yeah, but Lance's side was the one who had the info with what was happening with other teams. There's no way that a real agent lets Larry Bird twist in the wind like that. The Pacers were firm.....with a very nice offer.
                            Not to mention, the only time people paying out "lose" is when they pay too much. If a team doesn't give you what you want, they didn't lose. They chose their "no" thus winning what they want.
                            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 docpaul View Post
                              Despite all the box-score-filled nights, Stephenson's PER last season was below average at 14.7 and he ranked 19th at his position in real plus-minus. Stephenson's rap as a board-stealer isn't helped by the fact that the Pacers were actually a better rebounding team when he hit the bench. To be more specific, Roy Hibbert averaged 9.2 rebounds per 36 minutes with Stephenson on the bench, but that dropped to 7.8 per 36 minutes when Stephenson took the floor. Not coincidentally, Hibbert's rebounding numbers are right back where they were before Stephenson's breakout season.
                              This guy reads PD. On the serious side, this is something that makes PD so badass. We've outlined and talked about this so many times it's not even funny.



                              Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                              According to Synergy tracking, Stephenson has scored just 26 points on 41 isolation plays, making him the least efficient high-volume isolation player in the game.
                              Wow. Talk about a stat that says Lance misses playing next to the other 4 starters from last year.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                Wow. Talk about a stat that says Lance misses playing next to the other 4 starters from last year.
                                I see it more as a stat that should make Lance realize that other starters shouldn't be "figuring out how to adjust to his game". Because in his head, Lance Iso is the best basketball play available.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X