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 Speed View Post
    I feel like they had to coax a young PG into asserting himself offensively. I don't think he's, by his nature, a gunner. I don't think this will be a problem honestly. His next step offensively was to make guys around him better and see the right pass earlier, anyway. I think this might help that, not be a problem. I absolutely trust Frank with this "problem" and think he'll handle it perfectly.

    Side note: If the Pacers make the playoffs, Frank probably has done his best coaching job of his career and won't even get mentioned for it.
    I don't think PG is naturally a selfish player at all. I think two things happen.

    1. He was told to be the go to guy. (he's got to learn how to do that.)
    2. The team tried to cut down turnovers.

    People forget PG was not supposed to be this good, this fast. He doesn't have the same experience as many superstar players, but he'll learn over time.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      People forget PG was not supposed to be this good, this fast. He doesn't have the same experience as many superstar players, but he'll learn over time.
      Yep. He's never ever been "the man" on any team.
      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

        I think it was Conrad Brunner who was on the radio last week. He had an interesting comparison for Lance in Vince Carter.

        Not talent wise, because I feel like Carter was near super very top echelon capable, from a physical talent standpoint. I'll never ever like VC for this reason, I feel he cheated himself and the fans to what could have been a special historic type player.

        He was talking from a standpoint of understanding what it takes to win and not getting that until now for VC, but its too late for him to put the two things together. The physical prowess and ability and the insight to playing winning basketball. Bruno felt like this is where Lance is and could be on the same path as VC. Lance is young, so you can never tell when the lightbulb goes on, if it does at all, but I completely agree with this idea.

        Now we can argue what is "winning basketball" and that is really really complicated to explain because its not just ONE thing. What its NOT, is saying things like "guys will start to understand my game, and they will adjust" (paraphrasing obviously).

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          I don't disagree, but I'm just saying Paul's overall game significantly improves this team. Lance was a just a moving part, Paul is the engine.
          Kudos on this analogy. It is an easy to understand, clear explanation of the difference between a team's star player and a good player that isn't the star.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Yep. He's never ever been "the man" on any team.
            I think people expect too much of him offensively.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              A lot of success is about your situation. Lance isn't as good as he looked last year, but the situation and the franchise put him in a spot to succeed. Something I think Lance really took for granted.
              It is true that a team with Roy Hibbert backing you up and Paul George holding down the best wing player is going to help you. But I don't think they helped that much on offense. That's not just because Paul was a one-on-one guy himself a lot of the time. It's because we lacked great shooters last year too. If Paul and George Hill are your best shooters, you are a pretty average shooting team at best. If Lance had guys like Korver to dish too...look out.

              The bottom line? There are more places as good or better than Indiana for Lance than there are worse places for him in Charlotte.

              Comment


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

                Lance's game meshed well with two players last year, really well, Scola and West. Paul and Roy covered up his defense a lot. And Larry Bird was the mentor Lance really needed, plus Vogel is actually the perfect guy for Lance.
                Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-25-2014, 08:01 PM.


                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  It is true that a team with Roy Hibbert backing you up and Paul George holding down the best wing player is going to help you. But I don't think they helped that much on offense. That's not just because Paul was a one-on-one guy himself a lot of the time. It's because we lacked great shooters last year too. If Paul and George Hill are your best shooters, you are a pretty average shooting team at best. If Lance had guys like Korver to dish too...look out.

                  The bottom line? There are more places as good or better than Indiana for Lance than there are worse places for him in Charlotte.
                  Isn't that true for anyone though? Any perimiter player surrounded by great shooting is gonna look good offensively. Its just like if you play on a team with great defenders, you're gonna look great defensively.

                  I think Lance needs specific types of players around him to succeed, I don't think he's a "plug-n-play" type of guy.

                  Edit: We Dont know yet if CHA is the best place for him yet (though its looking like a bad fit) but unless changes were made here (I.E Roy and maybe Hill) I Dont think Indy was the best place for him either. Lance had good chemistry with Scola early in the year and D.West (a "plug-n-play" type of guy) but not really anyone else on our roster imo
                  Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-25-2014, 08:12 PM.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    It is true that a team with Roy Hibbert backing you up and Paul George holding down the best wing player is going to help you. But I don't think they helped that much on offense. That's not just because Paul was a one-on-one guy himself a lot of the time. It's because we lacked great shooters last year too. If Paul and George Hill are your best shooters, you are a pretty average shooting team at best. If Lance had guys like Korver to dish too...look out.

                    The bottom line? There are more places as good or better than Indiana for Lance than there are worse places for him in Charlotte.
                    Or you know, Lance is just not that good of a player.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by immortality View Post
                      Or you know, Lance is just not that good of a player.
                      Do trolls always follow around a poster like this? Seriously, you have gone over the line where your content isn't worth seeing. You are only the third to go on my ignore list...

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Isn't that true for anyone though? Any perimiter player surrounded by great shooting is gonna look good offensively. Its just like if you play on a team with great defenders, you're gonna look great defensively.

                        I think Lance needs specific types of players around him to succeed, I don't think he's a "plug-n-play" type of guy.

                        Edit: We Dont know yet if CHA is the best place for him yet (though its looking like a bad fit) but unless changes were made here (I.E Roy and maybe Hill) I Dont think Indy was the best place for him either. Lance had good chemistry with Scola early in the year and D.West (a "plug-n-play" type of guy) but not really anyone else on our roster imo
                        I think Charlotte is just a particularly bad situation for Lance. He is paired with a guy who basically is a miniature version of him, who also runs the offense as the PG. The whole team is weak from the perimeter. Their C is a traditional C who is good in the post but the ball sticks to his hands worse than JO, Kemba or Lance.

                        There is not only very bad spacing, but the ball just does not move well. It is very choppy because it sticks to too many hands...who happen to be the three best players on the team. Admittedly, Lance is doing the same type of thing. That doesn't mean Lance, AlJeff and Kemba are bad players as much as, together they are just too similar and the combination is bad. Lance or Kemba in particular on another team would be very good players.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Lance's game meshed well with two players last year, really well, Scola and West. Paul and Roy covered up his defense a lot. And Larry Bird was the mentor Lance really needed, plus Vogel is actually the perfect guy for Lance.
                          Agree with everything here, except all the starters last year were good defenders. No, he's not close to Paul George at all but Paul is elite. Lance is about average or a little better when he is focused. He is both long and strong and it's impossible to teach that.

                          Lance may have been #4 or #5 on that list...heck, I will give you #5 on that team, but he's still not bad even considering the ball gawking which is part of his immaturity issues.

                          Comment


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

                            Lance to me is average, but the spot where Roy and Paul covered up for him is off ball defense, when he's locked in he is very good 1v1, but even when he is locked in he struggles off the ball. He struggled with Korver first round whenever he was matched on him just as an example. Paul and Roy cover a lot of space and removed a lot of his mistakes just by being in the area.

                            Paul also helped Lance on offense by absorbing the best perimeter defender every night.


                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Lance to me is average, but the spot where Roy and Paul covered up for him is off ball defense, when he's locked in he is very good 1v1, but even when he is locked in he struggles off the ball. He struggled with Korver first round whenever he was matched on him just as an example. Paul and Roy cover a lot of space and removed a lot of his mistakes just by being in the area.

                              Paul also helped Lance on offense by absorbing the best perimeter defender every night.
                              I have to say that is a good point. Paul is a big distraction for the defense and even if he's not a great shooter, he did spread the floor and run the floor allowing Lance to operate. He doesn't have that now. But I think the biggest issue for Lance is spacing and the fact his team mates are too much like him.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                It is true that a team with Roy Hibbert backing you up and Paul George holding down the best wing player is going to help you. But I don't think they helped that much on offense. That's not just because Paul was a one-on-one guy himself a lot of the time. It's because we lacked great shooters last year too. If Paul and George Hill are your best shooters, you are a pretty average shooting team at best. If Lance had guys like Korver to dish too...look out.

                                The bottom line? There are more places as good or better than Indiana for Lance than there are worse places for him in Charlotte.
                                If Lance was surrounded by bad shooters, i.e. Paul George/George Hill, then why is everyone talking about how Lance is a square peg in a round hole in Charlotte, because he's not around good shooters?

                                For your POV, Lance made a lateral move, which doesn't explain why Lance is struggling to fit in.
                                From everyone else's POV, Lance made a downward move, which explains why Lance is struggling to fit in.

                                If you don't think GHill and Paul are good shooters, then please explain why Lance's game is taking such a large hit playing next to more bad shooters.

                                IMHO, if Lance was around average at best shooters here, and he's around bad shooters in Charlotte, he ought to be used to not having good shooting around him. There should be no adjustment in his game, because he's already spent the last 2-3 seasons preparing for this exact type of situation.
                                Last edited by Since86; 11-26-2014, 09:38 AM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X