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

Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    That doesn't mean it wasn't Bird's idea, or that it was Vogel's. It just means Price has forced them to play him.
    But (hypothetically) if Bird was telling Frank to play Lance in the first place, that would suggest Vogel ALREADY thought AJ Price was the better choice to put in the rotation. So, what, now Frank decided to stop listening to Bird just because AJ had some good games? He already felt like AJ was better to begin with in this hypothetical to begin with!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      No this proves nothing. It could have been Vogel was under mandate, but after seeing Price play for an extended period of time Bird realized his error. There are a million things this could mean, but there is only one that is not speculation, Price has forced them to play him because of how he has played on the court.
      I guess I'm a little bit hung up on your choice of words here. "Force". Did he really force him? Is that really the right word for this situation? If I bust my butt at work and eventually my boss decides to promote me, did I really "force" him to do it, or did I EARN it? I think earn might be a better choice than force.

      It's semantics, but still.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        I have no idea how you read this tweet, and then made the flying leap to "this proves" anything.

        It proves absolutely nothing.
        It proves that IF there WAS a mandate from Bird, it's obviously not still in effect, or otherwise that Vogel has now defied Bird.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

          It will be interesting to see whether Larry makes a trade to try to improve the roster at the same time Coach Vogel is trying to streamline his rotations to get us ready for the post-season. If a trade is made, this whole experimenting process will have to be done all over again. That's why I hope, if a trade gets made, it happens sooner rather than later, so the team is accustomed to the respective roles of each player by the time we hit April.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            Price has raised his shooting percentage to a blistering 37%. Of course, once defenses start to focus more on him, we can expect it to plummet. He's also at 1.9:1 assist-to-turnover ratio. Stockton, Magic: Watch out!
            I don't see why defenses are going to start "focusing" on a player like AJ Price. It's not worth the effort, to be honest.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              MAckey

              Had to juice up on caffine to go at you

              Vogel's tweet said AJ will play, Lance basically only in blowout or emergency

              This we can end the rummor that Vogel somehow was mandates to play Lance siognificant minutes, by Bird
              Better pop another 5 Hour.

              It wasn't Vogel's tweet. It was a tweet from Mike Wells.

              Vogel said that AJ will be the backup point guard, and Hill the backup shooting guard. Wells then inferred, based on this information, that Lance would only be getting spot minutes in blowout situations.

              Just because he is no longer being mandated to play Lance, doesn't mean that he wasn't mandated before. It would be just as easy to speculate that Bird recognized the error of his ways and backed off, allowing Vogel to make the decisions.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                The thing that gets proven here is that Lance is somewhere between 11-13 in the rotation as he should be at this juncture of his career. I don't think too many people aren't enamored by the raw ability of Lance. It is the lack of basketball maturity and IQ that he is working on. I see the improvement. It might be subtle, but I love how he has begun to work to spots and pass the ball to initiate the offense. It is something that he is consciously doing and there shouldn't be plays run FOR a guy who is 11-13 in the rotation, unless the game is not on the line or we are dealing with a bad foul situation one game. Lance needs to fit into the offense before he can be a full-time passenger on this bus, let alone handed ANY keys.
                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                  Also, Bird has repeatedly said he lets his coaches coach. That he doesn't get in the way, but is just there to support the coaching staff.

                  So I don't know why there was ever a rumor that Bird mandated anything. We have a very talented young kid that needs to get his feet wet and our coaching staff isn't too stupid to realize that, let alone be mandated by a hands-off GM.
                  "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                    I'm not too surprised. Admittedly, Price has played pretty well for the past couple of games. Honestly, I just think it's more Vogel shortening his rotation with more "NBA ready" players, than a demotion of Lance. Personally, I REALLY like the potential of Lance, and I do believe he has the better court vision, passing skills, and one-on-one dribble penetration skills than DC and Price just based on his raw talent. If he continues to improve at the same pace (preferably quicker) and with the same passion as Roy Hibbert, then we should be to contend each year easily.

                    Truth be told, I REALLY wish that the Pacers would send him to D-League where he could get consistent minutes to grow his skills, so he can contribute immediately next season.
                    Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 03-01-2012, 12:05 AM.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      Better pop another 5 Hour.

                      It wasn't Vogel's tweet. It was a tweet from Mike Wells.

                      Vogel said that AJ will be the backup point guard, and Hill the backup shooting guard. Wells then inferred, based on this information, that Lance would only be getting spot minutes in blowout situations.

                      Just because he is no longer being mandated to play Lance, doesn't mean that he wasn't mandated before. It would be just as easy to speculate that Bird recognized the error of his ways and backed off, allowing Vogel to make the decisions.
                      You just like to argue brah

                      Its been understood here my point by many others, anything else is semantics
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                        Anyone remember the tweets Mike Wells would post last season as to why Lance wasn't getting any PT? i recall him repeatedly bashing his defense and how he had to step it up. Call me blind but i think he's picked it up on the defensive end tremendously in just a season. He looks motivated when he's guarding his guy, moving feet, active hands.. drastic increase compared to last year. He's not a good defender yet, but he's getting there.

                        I should rephrase myself when i said "giving him the keys to the car" i didn't mean up his minutes to 20-25 a game, what i meant was giving him more liberty out there and letting him do what he wants to do. I hear all this talk about him being a beast in practice but not showing up in games. Practice is nothing like a real game as well all know. Intensity mainly. Practice is more loose and lance can maybe show off or do some fancy things but in a game, he's still not used to the speed of the game and his teammates tendencies. I don't blame him for some of his turnovers although.. i recall a couple plays with (mainly Granger) where he doest a nice pass and they don't expect it and a turnover is committed. Larry called him the most talented player on the pacers for a reason. anyone can and should be able to see the potential this kid has. High ceiling. higher than DC for sure.

                        I was against it but i suppose a D-League call up would help him a lot. More minutes, more freedom on the court and competitive basketball!! As you can see i'm a huge Stephenson fan, and want this guy to live up to his potential. He looks like he's on the right path, i just hope he doesn't lose patience and a.) do something stupid b.) go somewhere else.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                          You just like to argue brah

                          Its been understood here my point by many others, anything else is semantics
                          I understood what your point was, but that doesn't make it accurate. Wells' tweet does not prove anything with regards to a possible Bird mandate.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                            To think that Bird wanted Lance to get some developmental minutes early in the season is perfectly reasonable, and if that was the case, I can't complain about his number of minutes. Now that we're past the all star break, is it that unreasonable to think that the powers that be are putting the project aside to focus on the home stretch?

                            AJ has earned his time and we obviously have to make the most of the remaining games, so bringing Lance along is lower priority now.
                            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              But (hypothetically) if Bird was telling Frank to play Lance in the first place, that would suggest Vogel ALREADY thought AJ Price was the better choice to put in the rotation. So, what, now Frank decided to stop listening to Bird just because AJ had some good games? He already felt like AJ was better to begin with in this hypothetical to begin with!
                              I think that was always pretty obvious though. When Lance was hurt, AJ got a significantly more amount of minutes than Lance would. (like 15 to 9)

                              It's possibly a number of things. Larry wanted to see how Lance would develop for the first half of the season, so he "mandated" or "requested" Lance get some minutes now. Or AJ's play could have forced Larry's hand. Or the fact that Hill is coming back from injury and we're heading for a tough stretch could mean that we need someone more stable like AJ out there. Or they're hoping his good play will continue, and he - instead of another young play like Tyler, could be used as a "sweetener" type player in a deal.

                              But I do think the bottom line is AJ forced them to play him. You just don't bench someone who is playing like AJ is playing. He took DC's minutes twice, kept the bench afloot when no one else was scoring a few times. For the most part, he's been very good defensively. Lance just isn't ready to help out the way AJ currently can.
                              Last edited by Sookie; 02-29-2012, 05:00 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Lance to only get minutes during blowouts?

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                I think that was always pretty obvious though. When Lance was hurt, AJ got a significantly more amount of minutes than Lance would. (like 15 to 9)

                                It's possible a number of things. Larry wanted to see how Lance would develop for the first half of the season, so he "mandated" or "requested" Lance get some minutes now. Or AJ's play could have forced Larry's hand. Or the fact that Hill is coming back from injury and we're heading for a tough stretch could mean that we need someone more stable like AJ out there. Or they're hoping his good play will continue, and he - instead of another young play like Tyler, could be used as a "sweetener" type player in a deal.

                                But I do think the bottom line is AJ forced them to play him. You just don't bench someone who is playing like AJ is playing. He took DC's minutes twice, kept the bench afloot when no one else was scoring a few times. For the most part, he's been very good defensively. Lance just isn't ready to help out the way AJ currently can.
                                Well put, I agree with the bolded part
                                Sittin on top of the world!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X