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 Phree Refill View Post
    I recall the last 10 games of BRush's rookie year he went for over 25 three times, over 20 five times, and averaged 18+ per game while looking agressive (dare I say 2014 Solo-esque) and like a legit NBA rotation player. BRush most definitely had NBA talent but lacked the motivation and gumption to keep the career afloat.
    Brandon Rush could have been an incredible player. Sad to see him waste all that talent.

    Comment


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

      To be fair, Rush has torn ACLs in both knees; one pre-Indy in college and the other post-Indy in GS. It'd be understandable if that somehow played a factor in the way he mentally approached the game, on and off the court.
      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
        To be fair, Rush has torn ACLs in both knees; one pre-Indy in college and the other post-Indy in GS. It'd be understandable if that somehow played a factor in the way he mentally approached the game, on and off the court.
        I thought it helped the eyes, not the knees.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Who knows if Lance is really hurt. It doesn't matter. Dude will be back and will prove all of his naysayers wrong.

          Edit: BTW, this crap is hilarious: http://8points9seconds.com/2015/01/0...ce-stephenson/

          It's a shame Paul isn't healthy and this sham could be exposed.
          I'm confused here. How is the thought that Lance needs Paul to hold his hand for Lance to be any good, a defense of Lance?
          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 BlueNGold View Post
            Who knows if Lance is really hurt. It doesn't matter. Dude will be back and will prove all of his naysayers wrong.

            Edit: BTW, this crap is hilarious: http://8points9seconds.com/2015/01/0...ce-stephenson/

            It's a shame Paul isn't healthy and this sham could be exposed.
            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I'm confused here. How is the thought that Lance needs Paul to hold his hand for Lance to be any good, a defense of Lance?
            I don't think this what BNG is saying. He is saying that, if Paul were healthy, the Pacers would still be struggling because Lance left.

            Comment


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

              I know what he's trying to say, it just doesn't make any sense.

              The Pacers being good hinging around Lance kind of goes down the drain when you see how Lance is a net negative in Char.
              Last edited by Since86; 01-05-2015, 10:32 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 Since86 View Post
                I know what he's trying to say, it just doesn't make any sense.

                The Pacers being good hinging around Lance kind of goes down the drain when you see how Lance is a net negative in Char.
                Nope. More straw men.

                Ok, maybe you just misunderstood what xIndyFan understood quite well. I'm saying the Pacers, with this cast of characters at SG whether you want to talk CJ, Stuckey or Solo, are not capable of being as good as they would be with a young and improving Lance Stephenson. In fact, the difference is so large we aren't going to contend with this team. With DWest slowing down, this ship isn't going to be right even when Paul returns...which is my point. Paul would not be able to save this team from taking a solid step down. You can point all day to Charlotte but it cannot erase what happened last year.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Nope. More straw men.

                  Ok, maybe you just misunderstood what xIndyFan understood quite well. I'm saying the Pacers, with this cast of characters at SG whether you want to talk CJ, Stuckey or Solo, are not capable of being as good as they would be with a young and improving Lance Stephenson. In fact, the difference is so large we aren't going to contend with this team. With DWest slowing down, this ship isn't going to be right even when Paul returns...which is my point. Paul would not be able to save this team from taking a solid step down. You can point all day to Charlotte but it cannot erase what happened last year.
                  Lance is not improved. If anything, he's digressed--in a big way. He has been one of the very worst starters in the NBA this season. With the way he has played and the way the platoon of Stuckey/Miles has played, I don't really see how you can come to such a clear conclusion favoring Lance. Besides the obvious.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Lance is not improved. If anything, he's digressed--in a big way. He has been one of the very worst starters in the NBA this season. With the way he has played and the way the platoon of Stuckey/Miles has played, I don't really see how you can come to such a clear conclusion favoring Lance. Besides the obvious.
                    I don't mean to digress, but do you mean regressed?

                    The fact he's a terrible fit with a couple ball hogs shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that his game has regressed. It's highly unlikely at this point that he's worse than last year. He's just in a bad situation, not only personnel-wise but also with his coach. You are free to call him a disaster to chemistry. I've been clear about that all along. If the CORE players on ANY team don't want him...that team shouldn't have him. But to claim he's regressed or that he's not very talented is an ENTIRELY different statement and completely false.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I don't mean to digress, but do you mean regressed?

                      The fact he's a terrible fit with a couple ball hogs shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that his game has regressed. It's highly unlikely at this point that he's worse than last year. He's just in a bad situation, not only personnel-wise but also with his coach. You are free to call him a disaster to chemistry. I've been clear about that all along. If the CORE players on ANY team don't want him...that team shouldn't have him. But to claim he's regressed or that he's not very talented is an ENTIRELY different statement and completely false.
                      Yes, I meant regressed. Good grammar catch, usually I'm the one doing that

                      He's a terrible fit, blah blah, you know, if he had worked on developing a jumper and learned how to play without the ball in his hands, or hell, picked a team where he fit in better, this may not be happening. He remains talented, but his effect on NBA games has become a net negative. It wasn't that before. So how is that not a regression?

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I don't mean to digress, but do you mean regressed?

                        The fact he's a terrible fit with a couple ball hogs shouldn't lead you to the conclusion that his game has regressed. It's highly unlikely at this point that he's worse than last year. He's just in a bad situation, not only personnel-wise but also with his coach. You are free to call him a disaster to chemistry. I've been clear about that all along. If the CORE players on ANY team don't want him...that team shouldn't have him. But to claim he's regressed or that he's not very talented is an ENTIRELY different statement and completely false.
                        Its one thing to play poorly because of a poor chemistry fit, its another to be the most inefficient high usage player in the entire league. Walker and Big Al aren't making him shoot below 15% for 3. That's regression. Walker and Big Al aren't making him shoot below 50% at the rim, and they aren't making him shoot in the 60's from the FT line.

                        If he hasn't regressed, idk what regression is. He certainly hasn't improved.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Its one thing to play poorly because of a poor chemistry fit, its another to be the most inefficient high usage player in the entire league. Walker and Big Al aren't making him shoot below 15% for 3. That's regression. Walker and Big Al aren't making him shoot below 50% at the rim, and they aren't making him shoot in the 60's from the FT line.

                          If he hasn't regressed, idk what regression is. He certainly hasn't improved.
                          Way too many factors have changed with him going to Charlotte to measure any regression. There is no doubt he was performing horribly. But the way you put it, you assume that if he returned to the same team he was on last year...that he would have regressed. I don't agree with that at all. The game is largely mental and you've seen Hibbert fall apart haven't you? It's not the same with Lance, but a different organization, different team mates and an extremely different coach may have poisoned the well for him. That's not to say he shouldn't be able to adapt, but he hasn't. Even then, it does not prove he's regressed. He may well have had the same year last year in Charlotte had he been there...for the same exact reasons.

                          Edit: When I said young and improving, I was looking at the whole chart not the last 8 weeks of his professional career in a brand new organization where he fits like the kid's glove that exonerated OJ Simpson.
                          Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-05-2015, 09:40 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                            I thought it was actually a good article and made some great points. While you cannot replace what Stephenson brought to the team in Miles, he does do things differently that help us out in areas we were lacking last season. It's not always about who has the most talent, but who fits best with the team. I'm not sure why you think CJ Miles wouldn't be doing some of the same things he's doing this year with Paul George. If anything, having Paul George on the court will open up CJ Miles for better shot opportunities instead of having to force so many looks like he's had to do this year.
                            I read that article on 8p9s a couple of days ago and didn't think anyone would take it seriously, LOL.

                            It's whole premise is that 1) Lance's main role on the Pacers is to space the floor, and 2) CJ Miles is better than Lance at spacing the floor. Therefore CJ Miles is better than Lance. The second point is undoubtedly true, but the first seems bonkers to me. I mean, has the guy seen Lance shoot?

                            It's pretty clear that whatever Vogel is looking for in a starting wing, floor spacing is not high up on the list. Otherwise, Miles would be starting right now instead of Solo and Stuckey.

                            Barring any trade or other roster changes, I think we're all expecting Solo to be the starting wing next to PG next year. Miles, streaky shooter that he is, is best suited for a bench role. It appears that Vogel thinks so too.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              I read that article on 8p9s a couple of days ago and didn't think anyone would take it seriously, LOL.

                              It's whole premise is that 1) Lance's main role on the Pacers is to space the floor, and 2) CJ Miles is better than Lance at spacing the floor. Therefore CJ Miles is better than Lance. The second point is undoubtedly true, but the first seems bonkers to me. I mean, has the guy seen Lance shoot?

                              It's pretty clear that whatever Vogel is looking for in a starting wing, floor spacing is not high up on the list. Otherwise, Miles would be starting right now instead of Solo and Stuckey.

                              Barring any trade or other roster changes, I think we're all expecting Solo to be the starting wing next to PG next year. Miles, streaky shooter that he is, is best suited for a bench role. It appears that Vogel thinks so too.
                              I'm not sure if you were listening during the game, (before the game) they asked Miles why he wasn't starting and he said he really doesn't care where he is, he just wants to play solid minutes. They also talked to Frank and I guess Frank pulled CJ aside asking if he wanted to start or continue off the bench and miles replied, if it ain't broke don't fix it. So, Miles could start if he wanted to but that's the reason miles isn't starting.
                              Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                              www.jjhughesracing.com

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
                                I'm not sure if you were listening during the game, (before the game) they asked Miles why he wasn't starting and he said he really doesn't care where he is, he just wants to play solid minutes. They also talked to Frank and I guess Frank pulled CJ aside asking if he wanted to start or continue off the bench and miles replied, if it ain't broke don't fix it. So, Miles could start if he wanted to but that's the reason miles isn't starting.
                                To me the whole concept of starting is overblown. If a guy gets his minutes then who cares? CJ Miles doesn't have enough clout to be angry about not starting anyways.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X