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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I can see now why bringing up jurors is irrelevant. Detectives recreate crime scenes for fun! It has nothing to do with a guilty or innocent verdict.



    Here's what Hicks said:

    Now, I could swear a form of the word "guilt" is in that sentence.
    Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant guilty in reference to a jury, not their own personal opinion. Like my post to Sollozzo says about the famous quote lawyers/detectives go with "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove" meaning that they can't dabble with intuition, they have to go with evidence that can be presented.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Humans are just as capable of being fact based and scientific as a computer.
      They are more capable. Way more capable. That's the whole point.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Agreed, just like you took mattie's post about Danny being more efficient, and tried expanding on it to mean that Danny was better MJ, and that Brent Barry was better than MJ, LeBron, Dirk, Larry. I get expanding it, but the topic what about what lawyers/detectives do with evidence, NOT what jurys do with evidence. They have two completely different set of standards, as the saying goes with detectives/laywers, which doesn't apply to a jury, "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove." Meaning, your feelings (intution) isn't not admissible in a court of law, only evidence is.
        Thank you!

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Anytime since86 loses an argument he acuses the other side of "changing the argument" or "moving the goal post" this is nothing new.
          Rich, coming from the guy who claims to have told everyone that he predicted Danny's knee injury and can't back it up with a single post in the past 5 years.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            It is hilarious. Pacer fans assuming that Lance had plateaued last year and couldn't possibly improve. Now that we have evidence that he has improved significantly, let's still expect a drop off
            No one is assuming that Lance has plateaued. He is definitely on the rise and one of the key players of our team.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              They are more capable. Way more capable. That's the whole point.
              Name one person here who has said that we should just let a bunch of computers tell us who is right and who's wrong. Name one.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                As has been said, everybody uses intuition. There is absolutely nothing special about trumpeting one's use of intuition. The point is it's responsible and intellectual to back up intuition by cross referencing it with all available facts. Is there some part of this that doesn't make sense?
                I can go with that. My point is that Intuition is greater than science/stats. Ultimately. But they're both important.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Agreed, just like you took mattie's post about Danny being more efficient, and tried expanding on it to mean that Danny was better MJ, and that Brent Barry was better than MJ, LeBron, Dirk, Larry. I get expanding it, but the topic what about what lawyers/detectives do with evidence, NOT what jurys do with evidence. They have two completely different set of standards, as the saying goes with detectives/laywers, which doesn't apply to a jury, "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove." Meaning, your feelings (intution) isn't not admissible in a court of law, only evidence is.

                  In post 505, Mattie used the fact that Danny was a more efficient scorer than Kobe Bryant as reason that he still thought Danny should still start over Lance (at least that's the way I read his post). My sarcastic comment about Brent Barry and Michael Jordan was a sarcastic way of illustrating that the efficiency stat didn't necessarily illustrate who would be the better fit in the starting lineup between Lance and Danny. Had I known that you would still be obsessing about it 15 hours after the fact, I probably wouldn't have made it.

                  I never told mattie what he could and couldn't say though. I just said what I wanted to say.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    Hate to say it, but I have been backed into a corner.
                    The victim card? Really?
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Wouldn't moving the Lance ( the better Player ) to the bench make it more "amazing"?

                      or

                      Would moving Granger ( the lesser Player ) to the bench make it more "amazing"?

                      Before you answer that....let's focus solely on your post regarding moving Lance to the bench and not the impact that it would have to the Starting Lineup ( something that many of us recognize as a price that we'd be willing to pay to make Lance the 6th Man so that he can improve the offense in the 2nd unit and therefore the improvement of the Team overall as opposed to simply improving the Starting Lineup ).

                      In other words....wouldn't moving the "better Player" ( who you clearly acknowledge as Lance ) as opposed to the "lesser" Player improve the performance of the bench?


                      I assume you are referring to mattie's post on this:



                      But he was referring to Lance being an All-Star this year...which someone was posting that he could become this season...which ( obviously ) is a matter of opinion at this point BECAUSE he isn't an All-Star yet.

                      But outside of mattie's post...which doesn't really suggest that "he will come down to Earth" but that he hasn't proved himself to be an All-Star yet.....who says that Lance be "coming down to Earth"?

                      Find me one person that does not support your view in this whole discussion....much less anyone her on PD...that thinks that Lance is outperforming his actual talent, he has plateaued and that his performance is going to level off to his regular level of production over the course of the year or his career.
                      CableKC this argument has never been with you I believe what you are trying to sell me the thing is that I don't believe your other supporters, I believe some people have hidden agendas that they are trying to push because they were proven wrong and because they have a mancrush on a player.

                      And regarding my comments I look at it this way, some people still think Danny is the better player, some like Eleazar go as far as to tell us that DG needs to come back so he becomes the number one option again so we don't have to pay Paul George that much.

                      So I'm thinking if this posters really believe Danny is the best player why in hell are they saying that moving the lesser player in Lance to the bench makes the bench better? are you seeing the contradictions here?

                      And yes some people are expecting Lance to come back to earth or come back to what they predicted.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        At this time there is no evidence to suggest one line-up is better than the other. It very well could end up being GH, PG, West, Hibbert, and Granger is the best line-up.
                        I am willing to concede that the best Lineup that the Pacers have is GH/Lance/Granger/West/Hibbert ( compared to having Granger in the Starting Lineup ) due to Granger's injury concerns, lack of playing time over the last year and overall familiarity with the rest of the Starters. I acknowledge that there will be some "growing pains" if Granger is inserted back into the Starting Lineup....I just hope that if that happens...that it is short-lived.

                        However, that doesn't change my opinion that running with the 2nd best Starting lineup while having Lance run the 2nd Unit with CJ isn't the best course of action to take.

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        On a side note, when did we go from a fact based judicial system to an intuition based judicial system? I am pretty sure the law itself says there must be sufficient facts beyond doubt in order to convict someone. The only time intuition comes into play is sentencing, and bail.
                        This thread has been all over the place....it started as a Lance Vs. GH then went to the typical Lance Vs. Granger discussion...somehow went off into a FG% vs. TFG% discussion and then completely went off the tracks with this whole Lawyer/Judicial analogy.

                        Last edited by CableKC; 11-04-2013, 05:40 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Name one person here who has said that we should just let a bunch of computers tell us who is right and who's wrong. Name one.
                          Hey, you've taken my "fact machine" metaphor and changed the argument!






                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            In post 505, Mattie used the fact that Danny was a more efficient scorer than Kobe Bryant as reason that he still thought Danny should still start over Lance (at least that's the way I read his post). My sarcastic comment about Brent Barry and Michael Jordan was a sarcastic way of illustrating that the efficiency stat didn't necessarily illustrate who would be the better fit in the starting lineup between Lance and Danny. Had I known that you would still be obsessing about it 15 hours after the fact, I probably wouldn't have made it.

                            I never told mattie what he could and couldn't say though. I just said what I wanted to say.
                            Your reply had nothing to do with who would fit better in the starting lineup, but rather who was the better overall player. Had you said that the most efficient player isn't necessarily the best fit, there would be absolutely NO qualms with it. But you didn't.

                            You shouldn't have said it, not because I'd obsess over it, but because it wasn't a good point to try and make in the first place. It's just a perfect illustration of one person saying one thing, and then the reader changing what was said into something else, so the reader could have something to argue.

                            EDIT: And going back and rereading what was said, it wasn't even about who was the better fit nor better player. BnG made a post where he called Danny a volume shooter, and Mattie was pushing back against that point in showing that Danny was a pretty efficient player.
                            Last edited by Since86; 11-04-2013, 05:43 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              History tell us that guys that are out of the NBA for almost 2 years after having surgery.
                              Danny Granger was ruled out indefinetely in October 30, 2012. The date right now is November 4, 2013. Danny has been out for 1 year and 5 days (and he hasn't even been out for that long technically since he did play in pre-season).

                              But let's just say that it has been 2 years because it suits our agenda, right?
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                You're reply had nothing to do with who would fit better in the starting lineup, but rather who was the better overall player. Had you said that the most efficient player isn't necessarily the best fit, there would be absolutely NO qualms with it. But you didn't.

                                You shouldn't have said it, not because I'd obsess over it, but because it wasn't a good point to try and make in the first place. It's just a perfect illustration of one person saying one thing, and then the reader changing what was said into something else, so the reader could have something to argue.
                                I beg for your forgiveness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X