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


    Comment


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

      Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post

      Oh c'mon...he's a future All Star

      Comment


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

        Perfect buy low opportunity

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          If anyone has followed Kemba they know he's not a selfish player and is actually a pretty decent distributor/facilitator. I just can't tell what the Hornets are running half the time.

          Half hearted P&R, very little off the ball movement, and half added post ups for Al on the right block short corner.

          Idk, like I said, I really have a hard time figuring out what they are trying to run.

          Edit: Most NBA teams play a lot of P&R with the weak side spaced with 3pt shooters. Teams with strong post players tend to run a bit of a Flex type of action, with the option of high/low option or guys running off of weak side screens (depending on how the defense plays). My point is, NBA offenses tend to keep it simple with playcalling, and utilize more concepts to fit their team/strategy.

          CHA does none of this lol. And the longer the game wears on, the less they run ANYTHING. Its Kemba, or Al with 3 other guys watching/waiting their turn
          This is why it means very little to hear Clifford talk about "playing the right way," as if that's some subtle knock against Lance. When no one has any clue what he's trying to run out there -- even his PG looks confused -- who's to say what the "right way" means to Clifford? If his comments about the fourth quarter last night are any indication, maybe the Hornets need to start playing the "wrong way."

          As the season wears on, I see the players losing more and more respect for him. It's a murky situation because he knows the next season on his contract is already guaranteed, and I can't imagine Charlotte would prefer wasting a large portion of that new money raked in from marketing/merchandise with the new logo on paying someone not to coach for them. But at a certain point, you just have to bite the bullet. I'd be very interested to see what Ewing can do with his long awaited shot at the head coaching position. Certainly a couple of NY-bred guards would have a great deal more respect for him than Clifford.
          2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

          Comment


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

            At the end of that game last night, Kemba was almost in Tinsley-Phoenix mode.
            "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 PGisthefuture View Post

              The more tweets like this the better the chance is we get a 1st or Vonleh from Charlotte.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                Well, the problem with the whole thing is that Lance makes the pass leading to the assist all the time.
                This is part of the issue when determining whether an individual statistic actually leads to a team result.

                No one is disputing Lance had more assists than anyone else on the team. He had 359 of the team's 1651 assists.

                The question is whether there was a possibility of more points if, the times he DIDN'T make an assist, he had passed to someone else who could then have made an assist. Or, even more subtly, if we could have gotten points more quickly and easily if he had done that rather than waiting for the perfect moment to get the assist himself.

                I don't want to completely reconstruct an argument that has been done twice already. The two sides are essentially that Lance's numbers are high because he focuses on the number he needs and not the action the team needs at the time VS Lance's numbers were exactly what the team needed most (if not all) the time.

                It's even harder because I (and I don't think I'm alone) think Lance changed a lot after he wasn't selected to the ASG. Prior to that he was in team mode more often. After that, he was in "what does this mean to me" mode more often.
                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 BillS View Post
                  It's even harder because I (and I don't think I'm alone) think Lance changed a lot after he wasn't selected to the ASG. Prior to that he was in team mode more often. After that, he was in "what does this mean to me" mode more often.
                  Yup. And if assists are the stat that we can look at to either confirm or deny, I'd think Lance's assist numbers dropping after the ASG would support this.
                  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
                    Yup. And if assists are the stat that we can look at to either confirm or deny, I'd think Lance's assist numbers dropping after the ASG would support this.
                    In a vacuum that could be interpreted either way, though. Did his assists go down because he spent too much time looking for the right one or forcing them, or did they go down because he was doing other things (possibly even the "right" other things)? It's why we always have to look at everything, not just one thing.
                    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

                      I agree with you, but the arugment being given is that assists are the relevant statistic to either support or rebut the opinion. Just playing by the rules the "other" side has setup.
                      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 PacersHomer View Post
                        The more tweets like this the better the chance is we get a 1st or Vonleh from Charlotte.
                        Both
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          The question is whether there was a possibility of more points if, the times he DIDN'T make an assist, he had passed to someone else who could then have made an assist. Or, even more subtly, if we could have gotten points more quickly and easily if he had done that rather than waiting for the perfect moment to get the assist himself.
                          How can we entertain a question with so many assumptions? Where to even begin? And what's the point when after two or even three if's or could have's it's not even reality anymore?

                          It's even harder because I (and I don't think I'm alone) think Lance changed a lot after he wasn't selected to the ASG. Prior to that he was in team mode more often. After that, he was in "what does this mean to me" mode more often.
                          The entire team changed in the month of March, our lowest point. Not Lance alone.

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Yup. And if assists are the stat that we can look at to either confirm or deny, I'd think Lance's assist numbers dropping after the ASG would support this.
                          Or, instead of lower assist numbers meaning Lance is in "me mode" it could also mean that the team hit a shooting slump. Because the people you're passing to have to make the shot for you to get the assist, right? So let's look at post ASG FG%, March in particular since it was our most crucial post-ASG stretch.

                          David West - 44%, averaging 46% in the previous 5 months.
                          Roy Hibbert - 42%, averaging 46% in the previous 5 months.
                          George Hill - 39%, averaging 45% in the previous 5 months.
                          Paul George - 37%, averaging 44% in the previous 5 months.

                          So which came first? The lower assist numbers or the poorer shooting by the people he was passing to? Or is Lance also to blame for four players not making their shots?

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          In a vacuum that could be interpreted either way, though. Did his assists go down because he spent too much time looking for the right one or forcing them, or did they go down because he was doing other things (possibly even the "right" other things)? It's why we always have to look at everything, not just one thing.
                          This is the problem I have with some of the discussion on here. Why must something Lance did or didn't do always be the answer to these kinds of questions? You say look at everything, but then you limit the scope of everything to one player when he's playing with four other teammates and relies on them, as they rely on him, to all play well and each "get their numbers."
                          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

                            Or, instead of lower assist numbers meaning Lance is in "me mode" it could also mean that the team hit a shooting slump. Because the people you're passing to have to make the shot for you to get the assist, right? So let's look at post ASG FG%, March in particular since it was our most crucial post-ASG stretch.

                            David West - 44%, averaging 46% in the previous 5 months.
                            Roy Hibbert - 42%, averaging 46% in the previous 5 months.
                            George Hill - 39%, averaging 45% in the previous 5 months.
                            Paul George - 37%, averaging 44% in the previous 5 months.

                            So which came first? The lower assist numbers or the poorer shooting by the people he was passing to? Or is Lance also to blame for four players not making their shots?


                            So where were you when the assists numbers were being touted FOR Lance?

                            I already said I agreed with BillS that assists probably isn't the best metric to measure Lance's willingness to pass/good decisions. Like I said, I'm merely playing by the rules set forth by the "other" side. If assists show that Lance does pass/make good decisions, then I'd think that Lance's assists falling at the exact same time people are saying Lance changed his game up, would be supportive information of that change.
                            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 Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                              This is the problem I have with some of the discussion on here. Why must something Lance did or didn't do always be the answer to these kinds of questions? You say look at everything, but then you limit the scope of everything to one player when he's playing with four other teammates and relies on them, as they rely on him, to all play well and each "get their numbers."
                              Because the thread is about Lance and a valid perspective is the impact he has or does not have on the team. A lot of the analysis is about how good Lance is by himself and how the team impacts HIM - that is fine, but the point of an assist is how it helps the team, and my interest at this point is trying to determine if a returning Lance is good, bad, or neutral for the team.

                              My given option that "they go down because he was doing ... the "right" thing ..." is exactly the kind of analysis you are saying ("right" is in quotes because it is subjective, not objective - in my case it means things that would help the entire team). If we look at the overall numbers (in addition to watching play, can't have one without the other), it might be a correct conclusion is that nothing changed with Lance and everyone else fell apart around him (one extreme) or that Lance fell apart and no one else's problems are anyone's fault but his (the other extreme). As in the media, the argument here tends to paint whoever is in opposition as one or the other of those extremes; the reality is in the middle (and I think the vast majority of posters would fall into that middle ground).

                              I believe from my analysis that Lance focused on his stats to the detriment of the team (not the total reason for the collapse by any means but significant and indicative of the impact Lance might have if he returned). I and others have produced tons of statistical and observational points to support that side. Some have produced statistical and observational points to refute those. That's what a discussion is for. To me, the people on either side who invalidate evidence because it doesn't match their story, or who confuse impressions with facts, or who mix up statistics and the interpretation of statistics are the ones who get my goat. It causes things to get circular, leading to repeats.

                              FOOTNOTE: Even though I believe Lance's impact was detrimental to the team, I also believe its impact was due in large part to the circumstances under which it happened. Which means I am OK with him coming back IF there is insurance (in the form of a major draft pick or developmental player), but I believe everyone (players INCLUDING Lance and FO) need to understand what happened so there's a better chance of succeeding.
                              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

                                Let me go on record:
                                The maturity level won't be an issue after this debacle. He will learn, still have his personality, but be a better teammate. What he has to prove is being a good teammate. He doesn't need to prove that he is an ALL-STAR. He doesn't have to prove that he is capable of carrying a team through bad stretches. He has to prove he will the first to compliment the team.

                                He needs to follow Andrew Luck around and see how it is done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X