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

Larry Bird stunned Lance left

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

  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

    I think Lance is banking on Jordan preparing a personal touch to him, much like Bird did, but I just do not see that in Jordan's DNA. Bird has always been a guy who is focused on making other players better even back in his BOston days. Jordan made people better too, but he did it through fear. Either you play well or I will have coach bench you. Doug Collins talked about this with Bill Simmons how Jordan would remove people from the game with just a glance to the bench. I don't think Lance quite knows what he's in for. Jordan is not there to baby sit or be a father figure for Lance. He will either expect Lance to produce or Jordan will lose interest in him very quickly. That is a lot of pressure on Lance. I hope he is viewing that way because if he expects to have a Bird type of relationship with MJ he just won't. Bird has always clearly had a soft spot for guys with rough edges, Jordan on the other hand IMO won't make time for that.

    Anyway, I think truly do think that Paul George's growth combined with the platoon of George Hill, CJ Watson, CJ Miles, Stuckey and Solomon Hill (Hopefully) will be enough to offset Lance. The biggest thing we will have to work to replace from Lance is his open court dynamic of getting out and running. I believe that the Watson/Hill backcourt can give us that sort of jolt if we play G. Hill off the ball. George Hill is the best athlete on this team and I believe encouraging him to get out and run as more of a "two guard" would be a good decision for 10-15 minutes a game. I believe that Stuckey can replace some of what Lance brought in the half court. Lance's half court impact is actually pretty over stated. He was good, but definitely not great, and Stuckey has been more proficient at gaining free throws than Lance has ever been. When you consider how often Lance drove to the hoop last year it is pretty telling that Lance only averaged 2.5 FT per game. I think part of this was the types of drives Lance took, a lot of them were fairly uncontested, Lance got a lot of open drives off of David West high post action and just from playing next to a guy who attracts as much attention as Paul George does, no reason IMO that Stuckey can't finish those plays the same way if he stays within the team structure, obviously that is an unknown but so is Lance's potential production in Charlotte so no reason we can't speculate both sides of the coin here.

    Miles clearly improves our outside shooting from the shooting guard position. He is a great catch and shoot guy in transition which is something Lance IMO struggled with. Lance was best as a shooter when he had time to catch, set and release, which is fine, but I honestly believe Miles ability to catch and shoot in transition can improve our offensive efficiency by creating more open court opportunites. Lance is a tremendous 1 v1 open court player perhaps one of the best 10 guys in the league at this particular thing, but he also struggles to create for others in the open court which could often create an extremely ugly transition setup if Lance found himself in a bad situation, yes occasionally he would bail himself out with a great pass which I'm sure we all loved to watch, but often he would find himself dribbling or driving into a double team with no good release. Finally it brings me to Solomon Hill, offensively I believe we need absolutely nothing from Solo if he can hit a corner 3 then that is a bonus, I think Stuckey and Miles can both replace Lance's 13 PPG, what we need from Solo is the opportunity to give Paul George a break on defense even if it is just for 6-8 minutes per game against elite perimeter offensive guys. If Solo can come in and do this, then IMO we have replaced Lance by committee.

    To me this is not addition by subtraction or even a 1 to 1 trade of talent (like say if we had picked up Dragic while losing Lance), this is a creation of a more identity based team, and no I'm not talking smashmouth or anything like that. The Pacers roster has the potential IMHO to function better as a unit than any of the teams we have had under Frank Vogel. And that is in closing my final point, this is Frank's greatest test yet, he has the talent and the matching pieces, now he just needs to put the engine together and put gas in the tank, not a small task by any means, but as I look at this roster I see the potential for all of these moving parts at the 2 position to help the Pacers make a better end product than what they could with Lance. That's not an indictment on Lance either, but it is just an observation based on the player Lance had become. Lance was a guy with a number 1 option mentality who is stuck next to a clear number 1 option. No matter what, Lance Stephenson was never going to supplant Paul George as the star on this team. It is entirely possible that for the betterment of both parties, Lance needed to go somewhere else and the Pacers needed Lance to go somewhere else. My only concern for Lance is that Charlotte was not the right place to go, but only time will tell on that front....

    I believed that Lance and Paul could have eventually learned to play together under the new normal of who Lance is as a basketball player, but I also believe there was a learning curve there. One that in the end Lance IMO decided he would rather not deal with which is fine and I believe the Pacers have done a good job not necessarily of replacing Lance Stephenson the player but of replacing the different skills he brought to the table. True we cannot find another Lance, but we've found many of the attributes Lance had through other players. Now it's just time to see if we can get all the instruments in tune.

    Anyway, those are my final thoughts on the subject. I eagerly await the start of this season as I believe the Pacers ensemble can play a more complete pleasant piece without Lance, it may lack some of the raw emotional power Lance brought, but in the end I believe the final product on the floor has the potential to be more fluid and melodious.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-21-2014, 12:41 PM.


    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I ironically funny thing about this, is the talent drop-off from Danny (11-12 Danny) to Lance (12-13) is bigger than Lance (13-14) to CJ Miles (13-14)
      Is this even true?

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        I hope your right but at the end of the day I am not happy with depending on Roy Hibbert.

        Not only do I think we have taken a step back though I think several teams in the East have made improvements. But again, it's only July, there is a lot to be said and done between now and the start of the season.

        I don't think we're depending on Roy HIbbert though. Roy is Roy for better or worse, but I honestly do believe the guy who will we see have a serious change in his game after the departure of Lance is George Hill.


        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
          But we offered him a player option, the same year Charlotte has a team option. It would make sense if that wasn't the case. And MAYBE those extra couple of millions means something to him now and he wanted it instantly. But I really think it has more to do with wanting to be more of a focus on the offensive end.
          I don't know why people keep saying that. It's been cited repeatedly and you can go see for yourself if you read the CBA, the player option in the middle of the contract is NOT POSSIBLE. You CANNOT give a player option in year 3 of a 5 year contract. It is against the CBA, so clearly this DID NOT happen. Quit saying it did. This article is worthless because half of it is based on a provably false premise.

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            What if it meant we offered a similar length contract, it's just not stated correctly? It's possible. I don't discount the whole article based on one incorrect item. I understand why some are, though, but not me.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
              Is this even true?
              Of course. I think people forget just how good Danny was.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                No you didn't understand what I wrote at all, or more likely I was very unclear in what I was saying.

                Let me make it more clear for you.

                The Indiana Pacers as constructed have peaked and are now on the descent. This of course is just my opinion and as always I could be wrong.

                Our front court has been exposed, when I say front court I mean Center/Power forward.

                We are soft, so far away from smash mouth basketball that I get physically ill just thinking about it.

                Lance is irrelevant to me in the way I am thinking about the team. Had Lance come back I still would say that we have to make changes and changing Lance for Miles or Stucky is not what I had in mind at all.
                As far as smash mouth I thought that was overstated. However it is even worse now that West is older and Roy is, well Roy. Slow and unathletic for your bigs is NOT good. I have not given up hope on next year but I think until the starting center is traded or a much better back up is obtained this team will not win a finals. I would sure like to see some smashmouth type ball but something has to change to get there.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  Originally posted by Dece View Post
                  I don't know why people keep saying that. It's been cited repeatedly and you can go see for yourself if you read the CBA, the player option in the middle of the contract is NOT POSSIBLE. You CANNOT give a player option in year 3 of a 5 year contract. It is against the CBA, so clearly this DID NOT happen. Quit saying it did. This article is worthless because half of it is based on a provably false premise.
                  Thanks, pretty sure it has been reported that the Pacers did, which is probably why people keep repeating it. (Which, a reporter being wrong is not unusual).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                    Is this even true?
                    Heck no.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      The Pacers roster has the potential IMHO to function better as a unit than any of the teams we have had under Frank Vogel. And that is in closing my final point, this is Frank's greatest test yet, he has the talent and the matching pieces, now he just needs to put the engine together and put gas in the tank, not a small task by any means, but as I look at this roster I see the potential for all of these moving parts at the 2 position to help the Pacers make a better end product than what they could with Lance.
                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      I don't think we're depending on Roy Hibbert though. Roy is Roy for better or worse, but I honestly do believe the guy who will we see have a serious change in his game after the departure of Lance is George Hill.
                      I agree. Last season, I thought we'd go as far as Lance and Paul George could take us - that their growth would be the main factor in whether or not we beat Miami. This season, I think it'll come down to how Hill and Vogel adjust after last season's collapse. We'll see.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        I hope your right but at the end of the day I am not happy with depending on Roy Hibbert.

                        Not only do I think we have taken a step back though I think several teams in the East have made improvements. But again, it's only July, there is a lot to be said and done between now and the start of the season.
                        This to me, is the big one. Roy Hibbert has always had dips in his play, but this was the first time, under Frank, where he didn't snap out of it for the Pacers. All players have limitations. We have a great coach. I think he can mask it (he masked it for a few years..). But the issue becomes Roy Hibbert's mental state. A Roy Hibbert that is playing well is with his flaws, so long as Frank can figure out a way to mask that.

                        I kind of go back to we need an athletic, mobile power forward. A team playing a stretch post player wasn't a problem with Roy. What the problem was, we had West out there too..who also couldn't guard the stretch post players. McRoberts really would have been a welcome addition.

                        When it comes to Lance...I think he was causing some problems (not all of the problems, but a lot of them.). What was so frustrating for me about Lance, was that in the first part of the season, he showed how great he could be for this team. Then the second half showed why it might be better for us to move on. Even still, our team had some flaws that having a Hill/Lance/PG backcourt was never going to change. Mainly...we couldn't shoot. Our only pure shooter is a power forward. Let's talk about Miami's great shooters..or San Antonio's great shooters. You can't win a championship without them. Having Miles in with the starting lineup is going to do a lot for a lot of players. (Like, every single player on the court.) Even if he's not a better player than Lance, or even if he's not the type of player we were looking for. (point guard.)

                        Granted, I'm still holding out silly hope that we get Dragic. I don't know with what..but I'll continue to hope.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          Heck no.
                          I could go individually through the stats, but since PER is designed as a catch-all

                          PER:
                          Danny 11-12: 18.6
                          Lance 12-13: 11.8
                          Lance 13-14: 14.7
                          CJ Miles 13-14: 16.0

                          Another ironically humorous thing, people like to mention Lance's TS% being the highest on the team of 56.4%, last year CJ's was 56.9%

                          CJ isn't going to bring the rebounding/assists that Lance does, but CJ is a better pure scorer than Lance, and fills a bigger need IMHO.
                          Last edited by Since86; 07-21-2014, 01:40 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            I don't know why people keep saying that. It's been cited repeatedly and you can go see for yourself if you read the CBA, the player option in the middle of the contract is NOT POSSIBLE. You CANNOT give a player option in year 3 of a 5 year contract. It is against the CBA, so clearly this DID NOT happen. Quit saying it did. This article is worthless because half of it is based on a provably false premise.
                            Dude... you've said this now a few times --- you need to read. "In year 3" was never once stated. You assumed "year 3" when they said "midway", which means towards the middle of something. Which could very easily (and is the way I took it) mean at first opportunity (year 4). The article is just fine, you just are making your own interpretation and then taking it way too literally. Therefore, you don't have to make the crazy assumption that this article is now null and void and worthless because of one misinterpretation on your part.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-21-2014, 01:43 PM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I could go individually through the stats, but since PER is designed as a catch-all

                              PER:
                              Danny 11-12: 18.6
                              Lance 12-13: 11.8
                              Lance 13-14: 14.7
                              CJ Miles 13-14: 16.0

                              Another ironically humorous thing, people like to mention Lance's TS% being the highest on the team of 56.4%, last year CJ's was 56.9%

                              CJ isn't going to bring the rebounding/assists that Lance does, but CJ is a better pure scorer than Lance, and fills a bigger need IMHO.
                              I just watch the games.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                I just watch the games.
                                We all just watch the games.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X