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 cdash View Post


    We banter back and forth on Twitter PMs.
    Fantastic


    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      Lance was effective here specifically because he was the fifth option in an offense with a point guard who was willing to give up the ball and spot up, a wing who would receive far more defensive attention, a forward who was equally comfortable inside and outside, and a center who wasn't reliant on his offense.
      Lance really wasn't the 5th option last year (he was option 2a or 2b, depending on the night) but the rest of this sentence is absolutely true and that's something important to understand. Lance benefitted a lot from playing alongside guys that were willing to sacrifice their stats to accomodate the team. And the rest of our team also benefitted from having Lance carrying a bigger part of the offensive burden.

      Did this last for the whole season? I don't think so. I think that one of the reasons our chemistry tanked post-ASG was because people were tired of being the only ones that made sacrifices. But that doesn't change the fact that this team was pretty damn good when they were making those sacrifices.
      Last edited by Nuntius; 11-21-2014, 12:27 PM.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        We reached out to Lance with an offer and gave him a deadline, which he didn't accept..
        Not for sure that's really accurate. Bird himself is on record saying he was willing to negotiate with Lance on a shorter contract, while Lance is on record saying once the Pacers signed CJ, in his mind, it was all over.

        Lance chose about $1.5M per season for 2-3 yrs over competing for a ring.

        The fact that Lance hadn't even spoken to Larry since Larry's initial offer, still irks me. Shows how immature the whole process was from Lance's side. Don't even have the stones to say "No, but thank you" before you walk out the door. It's the same thing people criticized LeBron over, when he had the ESPN announcement.
        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

          Yeah, Lance's side acting so immature made losing him a lot easier to get over. Don't really care anymore. We have some really nice pieces moving forward.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Not for sure that's really accurate. Bird himself is on record saying he was willing to negotiate with Lance on a shorter contract, while Lance is on record saying once the Pacers signed CJ, in his mind, it was all over.

            Lance chose about $1.5M per season for 2-3 yrs over competing for a ring.

            The fact that Lance hadn't even spoken to Larry since Larry's initial offer, still irks me. Shows how immature the whole process was from Lance's side. Don't even have the stones to say "No, but thank you" before you walk out the door. It's the same thing people criticized LeBron over, when he had the ESPN announcement.
            Not quite. I think that even though Lance didn't talk to anyone, someone in his camp told the Pacers he was signing with Charlotte - I don't think they were taken by surprise on the actual signing, just on the decision.

            LBJ's camp didn't let anyone in Cleveland know what was happening so as not to spoil the Big Reveal. That's what was ridiculous.
            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

              Same difference, IMHO. I remember being 8y/o and my dad making me call my baseball coach to tell him that I wasn't going to be at practice because of an illness. That lesson has stuck with me for the past 20 years.
              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
                Not for sure that's really accurate. Bird himself is on record saying he was willing to negotiate with Lance on a shorter contract, while Lance is on record saying once the Pacers signed CJ, in his mind, it was all over.

                Lance chose about $1.5M per season for 2-3 yrs over competing for a ring.

                The fact that Lance hadn't even spoken to Larry since Larry's initial offer, still irks me. Shows how immature the whole process was from Lance's side. Don't even have the stones to say "No, but thank you" before you walk out the door. It's the same thing people criticized LeBron over, when he had the ESPN announcement.
                I thought I read that we gave Lance a deadline to sign at our original offer before we started signing other players (paraphrasing of course). I'm not criticizing Bird as he said from the get-go that they had a number in place for Lance and we weren't going to overpay. I agree that it was kind of silly to feel that it was "over" once we signed CJ Miles. I thought it was even sillier (and kind of messed up) for anyone within Lance's camp suggest we cut a player or two in order to up our offer to Lance. Just not good business.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  You often had this same complaint last year. I always felt Lance shot the ball EARLY in the shot clock a lot, this is something I'll pay attention to the next time I watch one of their games.

                  I do agree with your initial assessment though, Lance is dancing until something happens (a cut, a shooter comes open, etc) but nothing is happening.
                  No doubt he will shoot an ill-advised early-in-the-shot-clock attempt once or twice a night. But to me it is not reflective of his overall performance or attitude in a game, although it easily gets construed in that direction. If he can eliminate those over time along with his two or three stupid turnovers a game, that will be a big step to the next level for him.
                  "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 Since86 View Post
                    Not for sure that's really accurate. Bird himself is on record saying he was willing to negotiate with Lance on a shorter contract, while Lance is on record saying once the Pacers signed CJ, in his mind, it was all over.

                    Lance chose about $1.5M per season for 2-3 yrs over competing for a ring.
                    Yes and no. As you say...repeating what Lance said, it was over once CJ was signed. But that was only one side of the same coin.

                    Lance left because the Pacers played hardball and didn't really negotiate...and immediately thereafter went forward with signing CJ Miles. It became petty from Lance's side, so they took their marbles and went home. Herb said it best:

                    "We made him a wonderful offer, and they didn't think it was enough," Simon said. "So it's a simple situation."

                    That is like the definition of hardball. I do wonder if he (i.e. Simon) was actually willing to move from that. I normally can read a situation, and I can't tell.

                    In any event, this turned off Lance and his agent...and they took the deal with Charlotte. Yes, money was always a factor. But I think it got personal. The only thing I really wonder is whether Herb Simon is disappointed.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Same difference, IMHO. I remember being 8y/o and my dad making me call my baseball coach to tell him that I wasn't going to be at practice because of an illness. That lesson has stuck with me for the past 20 years.
                      Sorry, not trying to be difficult here....but I'm trying to understand the context of your post. Can you elaborate here?
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        In any event, this turned off Lance and his agent...and they took the deal with Charlotte. Yes, money was always a factor. But I think it got personal. The only thing I really wonder is whether Herb Simon is disappointed.
                        My guess is that he wasn't as disappointed as many here were about losing him.

                        Pure speculation here...but given his comments....IMHO given that Simon views what happens to this Organization differently than we do ( as fans ), I think he looked at what happened to Lance more as a Business decision as opposed to a Basketball decision.....so, it's not as big of a deal to him.

                        I think that he looked at seeing Lance leave from a "this is our price that the Pacers thinks he is worth and anything beyond that price isn't worth losing sleep over" perspective.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 11-20-2014, 04:54 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          My guess is that he wasn't as disappointed as many here were about losing him.
                          This is Herb Simon:

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            My guess is that he wasn't as disappointed as many here were about losing him.

                            Pure speculation here...but given his comments....IMHO given that Simon views what happens to this Organization differently than we do ( as fans ), I think he looked at what happened to Lance more as a Business decision as opposed to a Basketball decision.....so, it's not as big of a deal to him.

                            I think that he looked at seeing Lance leave from a "this is our price that the Pacers thinks he is worth and anything beyond that price isn't worth losing sleep over" perspective.
                            I would have to agree. I think Herb was ready to cut bait. I don't think we yet know if it was a mistake basketball-wise. We may know in 3-5 years if it was truly a mistake to draw a hard line. Right now, it doesn't look like a mistake given the way he is playing. But again, he's not on the right team for his skills. It's like Hibbert playing on one of the old Phoenix Suns run-n-gun teams. It just wouldn't work.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              Lance really wasn't the 5th option last year (he was option 2a or 2b, depending on the night) but the rest of this sentence is absolutely and that's something important to understand. Lance benefitted a lot from playing alongside guys that were willing to sacrifice their stats to accomodate the team. And the rest of our team also benefitted from having Lance carrying a bigger part of the offensive burden.

                              Did this last for the whole season? I don't think so. I think that one of the reasons our chemistry tanked post-ASG was because people were tired of being the only ones that made sacrifices. But that doesn't change the fact that this team was pretty damn good when they were making those sacrifices.
                              I agree with this and I've never thought that Al and Kemba would be willing to take a back seat to Lance, even for parts of a game. In fact very few teams have starters that would which is just one of many reasons why Lance was better off in this environment. With the fact that Lance and Kemba have similar games it makes for bad chemistry now, in the future I think we'll see something worse then this as players don't want to sacrifice and Al demands the ball in the paint more then Lance is willing to give it to him. Lance won't be happy not having the ball in his hands as much as he wants it and will go rogue more often when he does get the ball. The best thing Lance has going for him is a coach that won't put up with his antics. IMO Vogel giving Lance and Paul the reigns was the biggest cause of our collapse last season.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


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

                                I think over the years I have been about as balanced as anyone when it comes to lance. I can see his talent and appreciate his skills, and yet a lot of his antics drove me nuts. When he signed with the Hornets, I had mixed feelings. I felt the Pacers offer was fair and if he really wanted to stay here he could have and would have. I was less clear on how I would really feel once the season started, especially after PG went down and all the other injuries. Would I really miss Lance?

                                After 3 weeks and 12 games I can honestly say I do not miss him at all and now I am so glad he signed with the Hornets. Maybe part of that is my excitement with Solomon Hill, or maybe I am just being a homer. But I don't miss lance, I don't miss all the negatives he brings. It is a relief not to have to worry about him causing trouble. It is nice to have a Pacers team built on solid ground. As talented as Lance is I don't consider him to be a player you want to be one of your core players, one of your leaders. He is OK if he is an energizer, someone who can provide a spark to a veteran team that has great leadership, but at least right now if he is anything more than that I think your team isn't solid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X