Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    The question I don't see being discussed is just what was this team with lance? 33-7. Or 22-20. My guess is if the team starts 15-14 people who are now saying we stink without lance will then say see we told you so. But who knows we might have been that with lance. So we aren't going to know and those on both sides will have points on their side
    Well if we start off 15-15, at least we know that we don't (and didn't) suck because of Lance. Meaning that the right move was signing Lance and offloading whoever the problem was.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      It seemed pretty obvious the issues were not between PG and Roy.
      What's scary is hopefully it was between PG and Roy. Otherwise it was between Roy and the voices in his head.
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        Based on what? I heard it was, and it destroyed Roy's head.
        Based on them all but literally saying "no, Paul did not have sex with my wife."

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          Based on them all but literally saying "no, Paul did not have sex with my wife."
          What are they supposed to say they're having sex with her? Also, I don't think Hibbert is married. Also, didn't necessarily say it was with his wife, just woman and sex issues.
          Danger Zone

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
            What are they supposed to say they're having sex with her? Also, I don't think Hibbert is married. Also, didn't necessarily say it was with his wife, just woman and sex issues.
            I'm at a loss. You apparently think it happened, they said it was BS, you apparently don't believe them and want to continue thinking it happened. So go ahead I guess.

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

              Originally posted by RWB View Post
              What's scary is hopefully it was between PG and Roy. Otherwise it was between Roy and the voices in his head.
              Roy's sensitive. It could be that it was between him and another player. It could be that simply the chemistry was off in general, and that effected his play. It could be that he started playing badly and THAT made him mentally worse. (Which would be the voices in his head.). There are plenty of reasons besides "PG slept with his wife" for him to have played poorly.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                why do people here dismiss the possibility of roy/pg sex issues? Do we know what actually happened and no one told me? Because the only thing to make it into the public domain is between those two. I never heard of anything else.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                  I've gone thru 700 plus posts, and I'm ready to move on. I just cross my fingers Bird will make a trade or 2 that will make this team better than it is now w/o Stephenson. I'd personally like to have a better PG than Hill. Could move Hill to SG or just find a starting SG. I like to have a coach who can coach offense, will use the bench he's been provided, and not wear out the starters. I'm calling it PSPE... Post Stephenson Pacers Era.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    Based on what? I heard it was, and it destroyed Roy's head.
                    Based on Roy saying, (paraphrased) "I have no problem with Paul or West." Roy singled those two guys as the two specifically he wasn't talking about.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      why do people here dismiss the possibility of roy/pg sex issues? Do we know what actually happened and no one told me? Because the only thing to make it into the public domain is between those two. I never heard of anything else.
                      Because players don't behave the way those two did if there's an issue like that. I'm not even talking about the stuff that could be dismissed as PR stuff.

                      I'm talking that those two were the first to go help each other up when they fell down. I'm talking about those two having a tendency to sit next to each other on the bench. I'm talking about on court conversations. I'm talking about how those two were the quickest to congratulate each other/high five when they made a good play. Paul and Roy literally showed zero signs of issues. If there is a problem between them, they are excellent actors.

                      I would literally believe that Roy's had issues with any other player (or coach) on the team before I believe he had them with PG. I mean, they could have been faking it..but that's a lot of extra effort over the little things.
                      Last edited by Sookie; 07-16-2014, 05:02 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        The question I don't see being discussed is just what was this team with lance? 33-7. Or 22-20. My guess is if the team starts 15-14 people who are now saying we stink without lance will then say see we told you so. But who knows we might have been that with lance. So we aren't going to know and those on both sides will have points on their side
                        Well we know what we could be with him even for short stints and its hard to believe that Lance impacted Hibberts or Scola midseason shooting slump right?

                        Part of thing that bothers me is that people act like we don't have series of events that don't lead to an outcome. I mean no one can say with 100% certainity about anything W/L wise but the old guy saying you can't draw a more accurate conclusion than joe schmo who believes the earth is still flat and that dinos didn't walk the earth bothers me.

                        Based on facts if we only have one missing piece from last year that played significant minutes so I am more incline to believe that the W/L record of the Pacers would be impacted "either" by the addition or substraction of that piece.

                        So good or bad record wise I believe Lances worth will be either proven or disproven based on this next upcoming season. Will it be 100% proven? No, but it sure is more evidence than what your post seems to want to include in any argument which bothers me.

                        I mean I get it Unclebuck, you are trying to prepare for the doomsayers post but the reality is we will learn more about this team without Lance now than we ever did before now that he is gone. There is nothing wrong with the conclusion that we are worse with him or without him now that we will have a season with this core of guys minus Lance so why is that hard to admit?
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 07-16-2014, 05:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                          Why are we only talking about the Eastern Conference? Did the Western Conference secede from the NBA and form its own league while I was asleep? If it didn't, then our ultimate goal to win an NBA championship has to consider those teams as well. Currently, I don't see how losing Lance helps us in that regard, unless of course you're of the belief that magic pixie dust will descend onto our locker room causing our players to suddenly have their chemistry back now that the evil presence has been exorcised.

                          In all seriousness, if you think Lance was a locker room cancer, then I hope that can ease this loss for you. But it's important to remember that the opposite could be just as true. What will you say if the Pacers struggle next season and the chemistry concerns linger? Who will you blame? Because of that, I'm happy Lance landed in Charlotte. I think he and Kemba will be a lot of fun to watch, a couple of NY prep products wreaking havoc on the league.

                          Why do we take Lance not giving the Pacers an "opportunity" to match as indication of Lance not wanting to be here? Throughout free agency, all we've heard out of the Pacers camp about their offer is that it's "firm." I think Lance got that message just fine. The Pacers made it quite clear that they did not intend to budge, and in response, he firmly said "goodbye."

                          And why do we take Bird not budging as a statement against Lance? Yes, Bird spoke highly of Lance, but Bird also knew that the ultimate decision about how much to spend doesn't fall at his feet. You don't think Bird would have spent more to keep his core in tact, like he said he wanted to do, if he could? That's not his decision. Simon dictates how much this team can spend, so Bird's hands are tied to a certain extent; by Simon and by Walsh's decisions when he re-signed Hill and Mahimni to those contracts. Just because Bird did not do more to keep Lance does not mean he did not want to. That money was decided well before free agency.

                          We can blame the CJ Miles and Rudez signings to a certain extent because they limited our flexibility, especially in the first two years. For example, it's not that the Pacers did not want to offer 27 million over three years, it's that they could not offer 9 million and 9 million and 9 million. The per year average is what limited us. If Lance can get 9 million from Charlotte and 10 million from Dallas why would he take 7.6 million from Indiana, especially when he sees Hill get 8 million? Maybe the Pacers could have offered more in the first year without the Miles/Rudez decision, but that MLE would be spent anyway, so for me, it's less that they hindered us to re-sign Lance (though, surely we should have waited to sign Lance first, especially since we claimed he was our "first priority"), it's that we didn't do a better job of spending the MLE; like Washington did with Pierce, for example.

                          In short, losing Lance was unfortunate, but that's the price you pay when you make bad decisions in the past. You tie your own hands and paint yourself into a corner, allowing a young talent to walk for nothing. What do we do now? Who knows? Maybe Miles, maybe a point guard and move Hill at the 2, maybe Stuckey (God forbid). What we do know is that unless we hang our hopes on Lance's departure uniting the team, the Pacers got worse today and there is significant work to be done if we ever hope to win a championship.
                          2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                            Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                            PG is better than like 26 or 27 team's best players. I'm just concerned about other team's second through fifth best players. With the Wizards, I'll take PG over Wall. However, I will take Beal over Hibbert, Gortat over West, and Pierce over Hill any day of the week. Hell, I'll take Nene over whoever our 5th best player is. If PG was LeBron I would feel better. However PG is closer to Blake Griffin and Melo right now.
                            George Hill > Pierce. West > Gortat. Beal > Hibbert.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                              When Roy made his comment about selfish players I believe he excluded Paul and David West. Isn't that correct?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                Let me remind you that Lance was not the Pacers best player.
                                YOU'LL NEVER CONVINCE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X