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

Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

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

  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    No, style AND level. This summer, nearly the entire board believed he would get around $4 million a year next summer. Few thought he would get much more than that.
    <--------- One of the few....

    Comment


    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      No, style AND level. This summer, nearly the entire board believed he would get around $4 million a year next summer. Few thought he would get much more than that.
      To be fair, most players don't double their statistics/heck playing ability. Twice. Two years in a row.

      Lance has certainly proven himself to be an odds beater.

      And I agree with Bill, lt's see how Danny plays first.. I still think the team would be better off with Lance in a Manu type role. I just think it's better to have a great shot creator come off the bench rather than someone who depends on other players to get him shots.

      But above all, I trust that Frank will make the right decision. He'll see how thinks are working and adjust.

      I just can't wait to see Danny play.
      Last edited by Sookie; 11-12-2013, 12:14 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        No, style AND level. This summer, nearly the entire board believed he would get around $4 million a year next summer. Few thought he would get much more than that.
        Irrelevant. The argument is that Lance's style fits better coming off the bench, regardless of how much he'll get paid. That's the reason why people compare him to Ginobli, you know, someone who's making $7.5M this season. But I'll bow out and go check out my fat chicks weekly. The opposing arugment hasn't been understood yet, so why should I think it will change this time around?
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Irrelevant. The argument is that Lance's style fits better coming off the bench, regardless of how much he'll get paid. That's the reason why people compare him to Ginobli, you know, someone who's making $7.5M this season. But I'll bow out and go check out my fat chicks weekly. The opposing arugment hasn't been understood yet, so why should I think it will change this time around?
          If you want to argue that most of the board this summer thought Lance was nearly as good as Granger and worth $8 million, then by all means go ahead.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

            That's not what I'm aruging....

            I'm aruging that what he's paid is irrelevant to whether or not he starts. Manu is getting paid 7.5 this year, he got paid $14M last year, and still came off the bench because of his style of play. People weren't arguing that Lance shouldn't start, not because he wasn't good enough or didn't have enough value, but rather his style of play fits better as the 6th man change of pace.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              That's not what I'm aruging....

              I'm aruging that what he's paid is irrelevant to whether or not he starts. Manu is getting paid 7.5 this year, he got paid $14M last year, and still came off the bench because of his style of play. People weren't arguing that Lance shouldn't start, not because he wasn't good enough or didn't have enough value, but rather his style of play fits better as the 6th man change of pace.
              Okay, you argue what you want. I'll converse with the people reading my posts.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                To be fair, most players don't double their statistics/heck playing ability. Twice. Two years in a row.

                Lance has certainly proven himself to be an odds beater.
                It's refreshing to interact with reasonable people.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                  Yeah, beause I'm the one not understanding what the other person is saying.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Irrelevant. The argument is that Lance's style fits better coming off the bench, regardless of how much he'll get paid. That's the reason why people compare him to Ginobli, you know, someone who's making $7.5M this season. But I'll bow out and go check out my fat chicks weekly. The opposing arugment hasn't been understood yet, so why should I think it will change this time around?

                    People understand the argument, but it's an argument that becomes increasingly outdated with each passing game. Lance's style is proving to work perfectly with the starters because he's had a drastic increase in ball handling opportunities. The chemistry between him and West just gets better and better. We're still able to use Lance's style plenty with bench players too because of the way that Vogel does his rotations, which has benefited us with the growing Lance - Scola chemistry. It never had to be an either/or thing. Lance can give plenty to both the starting unit and bench players.

                    Yes, San Antonio brings Manu off of the bench. But San Antonio also has one of the best ball handlers in the entire league in Tony Parker. I'm as big of a George Hill fan as anyone, but the guy is never going to be confused for being an elite ball handler. And while Paul is an NBA superstar right now, turnovers have always been a weakness of his. This is why today's Lance fits in perfectly with the starters. He is proving to be a damn good ball handler who is setting his teammates up better than anyone else on the team, regardless of whether he's starting or on the bench. At this point, taking Lance out of the starting lineup would be a major disservice to the team.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      People understand the argument,
                      Obviously they don't, if McKey thinks the arugment is tied to how much a player is making. But he knows my arugment better than I do, and I like fat chicks, so he wins.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                        I'm not going to rehash the arugment. If posters want to build their strawmen armys and then do battle, then I guess I should just let them have their fun.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          To be fair, most players don't double their statistics/heck playing ability. Twice. Two years in a row.
                          Actually it happens all the time with talented young players... Paul George, Eric Bledsoe, James Harden, Kevin Love... It is rare for a talented player to hit his ceiling in his first few years. For some reason people were determined to label him a "8 ppg role player" after one season of minutes...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I'm not going to rehash the arugment. If posters want to build their strawmen armys and then do battle, then I guess I should just let them have their fun.

                            Wasn't your argument all off-season that Lance wasn't going to get much ball handling opportunities in the starting unit? I think I understand your argument well, but what we've witnessed so far this season from Lance is making it outdated.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              If you want to argue that most of the board this summer thought Lance was nearly as good as Granger and worth $8 million, then by all means go ahead.
                              We still don't know how much lance will be worth or how good Granger will be. There's still more than 70 games left on the season, plenty of time to learn both where Granger is at and Lance's price.

                              It's going to be higher than I thought, but even though he's comparable to 8 million dollar guards he's also comparable to a lot of 5 million dollar guards playing on winning teams.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indy Cornrows: Granger an "Easy Choice" over Stephenson

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Wasn't your argument all off-season that Lance wasn't going to get much ball handling opportunities in the starting unit? I think I understand your argument well, but what we've witnessed so far this season from Lance is making it outdated.
                                Yep. He handles the ball MUCH more when he's with the second unit. CJ pretty much plays off ball and Lance runs with it. However with the starters, GHill is still the one that brings the ball up. Lance does handle the ball with him, but not nearly as much. I think it will always be that way, because Lance is Lance due to his bit of craziness. Not knowing what he's going to do with the ball, in limited situations, is a good thing. Not knowing what he's going to do with the ball, as a primary ball handler, isn't a good thing.

                                After the Bulls game, NBAtv was talking about Lance and Nate Robinson and how every team needs that type of player. I agree. I think that type of player is better suited as a bench player. I think Lance would probably end most games, when he's playing well. But I think his energy, would be a good mid/late first quarter pick me up.

                                EDIT: Hell Frank has swapped time between CJ/Hill to put the ball into Lances hands with the other 3 starters. As long as Lance is playing next to GHill, Hill is the primary ball handler. I don't see that changing.
                                Last edited by Since86; 11-12-2013, 12:47 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X