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 vnzla81 View Post
    I'm not twisting words I was just paraphrasing what he said, by the way is really not that much different to what I said, he uses nice words and is all diplomatic but at the end of the day he is saying I want to start and Lance goes to the bench.(note that I'm not going to go 10 pages with this argument either because I know DG's word is sacred around here).
    No, you are twisting his words and you are doing it again in this post. He's just saying he is more comfortable starting. And what he said about Lance is exactly true and is showing this season, he's a playmaker with the second unit.

    You are suggesting Danny is being diplomatic as some sort of cover rather than because thats how he actually feels. Thats twisting his words right there.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I'm not twisting words I was just paraphrasing what he said, by the way is really not that much different to what I said, he uses nice words and is all diplomatic but at the end of the day he is saying I want to start and Lance goes to the bench.(note that I'm not going to go 10 pages with this argument either because I know DG's word is sacred around here).
      Fine, but where does that come off as "if I don't get what I want I'm going to ruin everything"?

      What ELSE is he supposed to say? Well, OK, I know YOU want him to say, "no, I can't do this any more, my whole career has been a sham, I suck, I should never have been a number one guy on this team, Lance should start and I should be in street clothes and give my entire salary for my career back to Herb," but other people find an explanation - which, by the way, matches the explanation Lance gave for why he'd be good coming off the bench - to be a long way from disruptive.

      As for the comparison to Iverson, if you remember Iverson as being at all reasonable about why anyone would do better off the bench as opposed to focusing solely, completely, and utterly on the idea that he either starts or nothing, feel free to trot it out. Also find me any place where AI ever said he'd be willing to come off the bench - and by that I mean prior to his pathetic attempt to get back into the NBA.

      But fine. Danny Granger is the Pacer's Allen Iverson - but not in skill, only in that he is so selfish he'd rather blow up the team than come to practice, work with players who might end up better than him, or come off the bench.
      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: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Danny wants to start.
        Lance wants to come off the bench.
        So the problem is what exactly?
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


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

          From the interviews I've HEARD (inflection holds a lot of value in these situations for me), I think it's pretty obvious Danny wants to start and sees himself as a starter. But he's also fine with being the 6th man if that's what Frank wants. Not necessarily happy with it, but wouldn't create waves or anything. Whole lot of pop psychology involved here, but I think that has as much to do with Danny understanding we can't afford him after this year and he wants to get one last big deal as anything. Not necessarily ego or I gotta get mine type stuff, just hey I gotta show people I can still play. And I don't blame him.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Danny wants to start.
            Lance wants to come off the bench.
            So the problem is what exactly?
            its not what vnzla wants

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              No, you are twisting his words and you are doing it again in this post. He's just saying he is more comfortable starting. And what he said about Lance is exactly true and is showing this season, he's a playmaker with the second unit.

              You are suggesting Danny is being diplomatic as some sort of cover rather than because thats how he actually feels. Thats twisting his words right there.
              OK lets pretend that instead of the god DG saying this things is Lance Stephenson saying it, the crying, veins cutting and building jumping in PD would be at an all time high, some would be asking to cut Lance because "OMG how somebody dares to say that? OMG ahhhhhh".

              But of course nothing happens because is DG :
              @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 Heisenberg View Post
                From the interviews I've HEARD (inflection holds a lot of value in these situations for me), I think it's pretty obvious Danny wants to start and sees himself as a starter. But he's also fine with being the 6th man if that's what Frank wants. Not necessarily happy with it, but wouldn't create waves or anything. Whole lot of pop psychology involved here, but I think that has as much to do with Danny understanding we can't afford him after this year and he wants to get one last big deal as anything. Not necessarily ego or I gotta get mine type stuff, just hey I gotta show people I can still play. And I don't blame him.
                Thats what I've gotten out of it. Above all else, Danny wants to win. But of course he wants to start. I wouldn't expect anything else from him. But I know he would be fine coming off the bench because of who he is. He's been talking about how nice it is not to have that full load of carrying the team on his shoulders for the past few seasons now.

                Danny's a smart guy. He knows the situation.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Fine, but where does that come off as "if I don't get what I want I'm going to ruin everything"?

                  What ELSE is he supposed to say? Well, OK, I know YOU want him to say, "no, I can't do this any more, my whole career has been a sham, I suck, I should never have been a number one guy on this team, Lance should start and I should be in street clothes and give my entire salary for my career back to Herb," but other people find an explanation - which, by the way, matches the explanation Lance gave for why he'd be good coming off the bench - to be a long way from disruptive.

                  As for the comparison to Iverson, if you remember Iverson as being at all reasonable about why anyone would do better off the bench as opposed to focusing solely, completely, and utterly on the idea that he either starts or nothing, feel free to trot it out. Also find me any place where AI ever said he'd be willing to come off the bench - and by that I mean prior to his pathetic attempt to get back into the NBA.

                  But fine. Danny Granger is the Pacer's Allen Iverson - but not in skill, only in that he is so selfish he'd rather blow up the team than come to practice, work with players who might end up better than him, or come off the bench.
                  @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 vnzla81 View Post
                    OK lets pretend that instead of the god DG saying this things is Lance Stephenson saying it, the crying, veins cutting and building jumping in PD would be at an all time high, some would be asking to cut Lance because "OMG how somebody dares to say that? OMG ahhhhhh".

                    But of course nothing happens because is DG :
                    No, thats not what would happen at all. But if thats how you see people on here, well I just don't know what to say. So many of the people who want Danny to start, pretty much all agree Lance is a better player. And I think they all would be absolutely fine if Lance does end up starting over Danny because they know the team will still be contending.

                    Just like Vogel said earlier in the year, he wants Lance to be fighting for that starting spot to keep it. So do I. Because a Lance that is fully engaged is the best Lance there is. Despite what you think, there isn't some sort of agenda for this all to make Granger look amazing. This is all about winning a championship this year. We want the team at its best with both units. Some think that Granger starting and Lance off the bench will do that. Thats all it is. But for some reason you don't seem to understand that and think we hate Lance and only love Granger.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      OK lets pretend that instead of the god DG saying this things is Lance Stephenson saying it, the crying, veins cutting and building jumping in PD would be at an all time high, some would be asking to cut Lance because "OMG how somebody dares to say that? OMG ahhhhhh".

                      But of course nothing happens because is DG :
                      Umm - didn't Lance say he wanted to be a starter early in his career here? And didn't the vast majority of PD say that he should want to be a starter and he was fine for saying that? Yeah, there were a couple of idiots, but a couple of idiots doesn't equal "building jumping at an all time high".
                      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: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        OK lets pretend that instead of the god DG saying this things is Lance Stephenson saying it, the crying, veins cutting and building jumping in PD would be at an all time high, some would be asking to cut Lance because "OMG how somebody dares to say that? OMG ahhhhhh".
                        If we had a better playmaker than Lance then I would want that guy to be the 6th man while Lance is starting.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


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

                          I'm going with we need to change the rules so there are 6 starters.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            I'm going with we need to change the rules so there are 6 starters.
                            So Scola can start.

                            Comment


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

                              Lance isn't making me want him to start at point any time soon. Rough tonight. Thinking mainly of decision making.

                              Comment


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

                                A sweet comeback by Lance in the second half, but by doing things that reinforce he should stick to being a wing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X