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 BlueNGold View Post
    Lance's Clifford is basically Hibbert's JOb. If JOb still coached the Pacers, Hibbert would be in a psych ward or out of the NBA.
    I think we can put the evil coach excuse to rest...


    Comment


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

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      I think we can put the evil coach excuse to rest...


      Interesting. I am amazed he couldn't forsee problems considering Lance is a ball stopper and Kemba/Al Jefferson need the ball in their hands to be effective.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Let's try a hypothetical. I really hope this clarifies things.

        Suppose you could bring back Gerald Green. Would you put more weight on his number prior to and after his time in Indiana, or more weight on his one season in Indiana with Vogel coaching and many of the same players? Similar to Gerald Green, I would put more weight on Lance's last season in Indiana. Lance would join the exact same starting lineup with the same coach. I don't think averages for years prior to him breaking out are relevant at all. Lance actually showed signs late in the prior season which led everyone to expect good things from him in 2013-14.

        As for Roy, he's proven himself however you want to interpret his game. He's not going to get better at this point of his career because his weaknesses (slow feet and poor base) are almost certainly not getting fixed.
        I would put more weight on Gerald's entire career. As I do with both Lance and Roy.

        Normally, people want to increase sample size. You want to do the exact opposite and limit the sample size, to just the numbers you agree with. You used to go on quite the rants about cherry picked stats, and yet here you are cherry picking the one stat that helps your point, while wanting to ignore the 15 that don't.

        Let me show you. Lance is NOT a good shooter, and regardless of what last years 3pt% was.

        2010-11 20 IND NBA SG 12 115 .333 12.7 .872 .333 .154 .051 .333 .128 .382 .385 .333 .500 .385 .000 .077 .000 .200 .000 1
        2011-12 21 IND NBA SG 42 442 .376 12.9 .760 .320 .152 .080 .208 .240 .453 .575 .316 .400 .385 .133 .209 .016 2 .750 .233 .143 1
        2012-13 22 IND NBA SG 78 2278 .460 12.9 .686 .378 .094 .054 .161 .314 .520 .695 .321 .375 .271 .330 .493 .038 20 .919 .314 .373 3
        2013-14 23 IND NBA SG 78 2752 .491 12.2 .720 .371 .144 .077 .128 .280 .545 .693 .432 .299 .387 .352 .328 .023 19 .791 .193 .489 4
        2014-15 24 CHO NBA SG 44 1266 .366 13.2 .796 .294 .123 .116 .264 .204 .422 .575 .283 .400 .325 .148 .283 .005 2 .846 .057 .000 2
        Career NBA 254 6853 .446 12.7 .731 .353 .125 .078 .174 .269 .500 .661 .367 .354 .336 .297 .355 .023 43 .842 .214 .387 11
        2010-11 20 IND NBA SG 12 115 .333 12.7 .872 .333 .154 .051 .333 .128 .382 .385 .333 .500 .385 .000 .077 .000 .200 .000 1
        2011-12 21 IND NBA SG 42 442 .376 12.9 .760 .320 .152 .080 .208 .240 .453 .575 .316 .400 .385 .133 .209 .016 2 .750 .233 .143 1
        2012-13 22 IND NBA SG 78 2278 .460 12.9 .686 .378 .094 .054 .161 .314 .520 .695 .321 .375 .271 .330 .493 .038 20 .919 .314 .373 3
        2013-14 23 IND NBA SG 78 2752 .491 12.2 .720 .371 .144 .077 .128 .280 .545 .693 .432 .299 .387 .352 .328 .023 19 .791 .193 .489 4
        2014-15 24 CHO NBA SG 44 1266 .366 13.2 .796 .294 .123 .116 .264 .204 .422 .575 .283 .400 .325 .148 .283 .005 2 .846 .057 .000 2
        Career NBA 254 6853 .446 12.7 .731 .353 .125 .078 .174 .269 .500 .661 .367 .354 .336 .297 .355 .023 43 .842 .214 .387 11

        Those are NOT good shooting numbers, beyond 3ft. They're below average. That is who Lance is. That is why teams back off and let him shoot, because him shooting at a sub .400 clip is a win for the defense.
        EDIT: Don't know how to delete the duplicate.
        Last edited by Since86; 03-05-2015, 11:22 AM.
        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 freddielewis14 View Post
          I think we can put the evil coach excuse to rest...


          He turned on him...clearly. Also question for the haters. If you give credence to Clifford's opinion what do you think of him dying to sign Lance?

          Dude is a great judge of talent and a terrible coach.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            He turned on him...clearly. Also question for the haters. If you give credence to Clifford's opinion what do you think of him dying to sign Lance?

            Dude is a great judge of talent and a terrible coach.
            Where do you get this idea that Clifford was "dying" to sign him? If he was dying to sign him, you would think they would have zeroed in on Lance before making a bigger play for Gordon Hayward, no?

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              He turned on him...clearly. Also question for the haters. If you give credence to Clifford's opinion what do you think of him dying to sign Lance?

              Dude is a great judge of talent and a terrible coach.
              Or Lance didn't pan out to be as good as Clifford thought he was?

              We keep acting like anyone who said good things about Lance were infallible but when they said or did something that implied Lance wasn't as good as expected suddenly there are outside forces at work or they are not telling the truth or they simply aren't any good - while the simple reality is that Lance isn't playing as well as (dare I say) most people thought.

              Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar or disingenuous. It just means they made a mistake.
              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 DJVendetta View Post
                If I can do an UN-THANKS for your post....I would....simply for introducing this abomination of a song into this thread.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  He turned on him...clearly. Also question for the haters. If you give credence to Clifford's opinion what do you think of him dying to sign Lance?

                  Dude is a great judge of talent and a terrible coach.
                  To echo cdash.....was it Clifford that really wanted Lance?

                  I ( and many here ) am probably guessing here.....but it really looks like MJ tried to swing for the fences when going after Hayward but ended up settling for the Best Free Agent Available that was left. Most of us can probably agree now that the Lance signing looks more like a "Let's get someone, anyone" type Free Agent signing as opposed to one that was based purely on fit. Clearly Lance was one of the last remaining Free Agents that was considered a Starting Quality Free Agent....but he ( as all of us know now....and it's something that you'd think that MJ would have known ) clearly isn't the best fit for the Team.

                  OT....and this isn't a knock on Lance but a criticism of MJ and the Hornets......but if Posters here on PD ( not all but some....TJ being one of them ) could easily predict that Lance isn't a good fit for the Hornets because we all know that he's a WAY BETTER "On the Ball" Player as opposed to an "Off the Ball" Player playing for a "No Nonsense" Coach that already has 2 Ball Dominant Players on the Team.....you'd think that the Hornets would have seen this as well.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    If I can do an UN-THANKS for your post....I would....simply for introducing this abomination of a song into this thread.
                    Dammit CableKC, you responded with the freakin' link, so now that song is in the thread twice. Not cool (no pun intended)
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


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

                      I love the dramatics. Clifford loved Lance, he need him so much "he was dying to sign him." But then evil Clifford "turned his back" on Lance, forcing Stephenson game to the lowest of lows. Pure comedy.

                      Anyone who thinks that doesn't watch the games and hasn't paid attention to anything. Clifford has defended Lance to the end, and has given Lance every opportunity to turn this around and even be the focus of the team. Lance has not responded and at this point Clifford has to win games.

                      Comment


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

                        If Lance robbed a bank, there would be people blaming the Pacers because they didn't offer him more money. The perceived lack of individual accountability when it comes to Lance with some is just astonishing.

                        Comment


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

                          I don't believe Clifford for a second when he says he was the one who pushed to sign Lance. Pretty sure it was exactly the opposite.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                            Dammit CableKC, you responded with the freakin' link, so now that song is in the thread twice. Not cool (no pun intended)
                            Rogco, Let it Go......
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              I don't believe Clifford for a second when he says he was the one who pushed to sign Lance. Pretty sure it was exactly the opposite.
                              Agreed. Clifford was benching Lance in November shortly after the season started and began ripping on him to the media. If he was a big proponent of Lance, he would have found a way to make things work and sure wouldn't have been so negative early on.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                It's pretty much standard knowledge Roy loses his balance because he has a high center of gravity, and that prevents him from being effective against some players. I actually think that qualifies as a fact. It's also pretty much standard knowledge that Roy has serious problems with stretch 4's. Again, I think that's as close to a fact as you can get. Whether Roy has been "figured out" is more of an opinion. I personally think...yes that is my opinion...that Roy is a very good player against some teams and ineffective against about 20% of teams in the NBA starting with Atlanta. With that said, I am fine with him as our C. I am not fine with his contract, but it could be far worse. So I'm all good with Roy. Cool?

                                As for Lance, teams might be able to take him out of the game by backing off and daring him to shoot. I would say that's a hole in his game at this point. But to me, I find that far less concerning than having a high center of gravity and not being able to be effective against some teams. That's not to say I want to see Roy gone. I like Roy. I just think the league has figured him out. That's not to say he cannot be effective against some teams but he's not going to be a dominant C as many thought a few years ago.

                                But again, this is about whether those flaws can be fixed. Roy's are almost certainly not going to change. Lance has a chance to improve his shooting and has already shown he can do that. With all this said, I truly hope Roy is a more valuable player than Lance (unlike last year) because the Pacers are going nowhere without him playing well.
                                The thing is that having a high center of gravity is something to be expected out of a 7'2 player. Roy cannot do anything about it. It's one of the disadvantages of being so tall. Every Center that has Roy's height struggles with a high center of gravity but that issue has never stopped anyone from dominating their opponents.

                                Yes, the league is different now. Yes, stretch 4s would be a problem for most other 7'2 Centers that have ever played the game. But our C isn't forced to guard stretch 4s. There are only a couple of teams in the league that employ a 5-out offense. Even Atlanta uses Al Horford as primarily an inside player (mid-range mostly).

                                But since you said yourself that "the league having figured out Roy" is merely your opinion and not a fact, I guess we're cool.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X