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 Hater Thread

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    But if you compare any of Lance's other seasons to Hill's - then it wouldn't compare. It works both ways.

    It works both ways. Lance has had ONE year where he's produced at that level. Hill has had 3 seasons where he's had similar production, give or take 2 points when playing on the Spurs. Even during Hill's first season here, he averaged about 13, 5 and 5 during the last 15 games of that season when DC went down, and Hill was named the starter.

    You just assume Lance will put up similar or much better numbers in the future while dismissing the fact that Hill has already done so in the past.
    No Lance has 2 years comparable to Hills best years actually, the only 2 he's gotten a chance to play.

    Lance played pretty well his first year in the lineup.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      No Lance has 2 years comparable to Hills best years actually, the only 2 he's gotten a chance to play.

      Lance played pretty well his first year in the lineup.
      His 8.8 ppg season?

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        \

        I compared both Lance and GHill at 23, so the age difference reasoning doesn't actually explain anything.



        And just above this you said you didn't answer my question, because I answered it for you. And besides, I've only asked the question once, so I don't know how you managed to answer it repeatedly.
        Because this is the probably the 10th different thread we've had this exact same debate.

        Some people LISTEN to understand, others listen to RESPOND. I think you fall in the former.

        I try to understand your POV, I just don't. I am a George Hill fan, I don't even dislike the guy. The only real criticism I've offered of him is his comments directed at fans and the position he plays. I want George here but only if he takes a lesser role. To me you have to earn a bigger role and he hasn't, IMO. I have no reason to twist this around. I am just offering my opinion on why Hill can't replace Lances production and I have to argue about what George Hill did 2 years ago or 5 years ago. All that is irrelevant to me.

        It's ridiculous. He can't replace Lance because he doesn't have the skills Lance does.

        If anybody can replace Lance it is Stuckey. And I have my doubts.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
          His 8.8 ppg season?
          Sure, using your rules of comparison. He was the 5th option that year and the only years Hill was a 5th option he averaged 10 or less.
          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            Sure, using your rules of comparison. He was the 5th option that year and the only years Hill was a 5th option he averaged 10 or less.
            Hill was a 5th option this past season and averaged about 11 ppg....

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              Because this is the probably the 10th different thread we've had this exact same debate.

              Some people LISTEN to understand, others listen to RESPOND. I think you fall in the former.

              I try to understand your POV, I just don't. I am a George Hill fan, I don't even dislike the guy. The only real criticism I've offered of him is his comments directed at fans and the position he plays. I want George here but only if he takes a lesser role. To me you have to earn a bigger role and he hasn't, IMO. I have no reason to twist this around. I am just offering my opinion on why Hill can't replace Lances production and I have to argue about what George Hill did 2 years ago or 5 years ago. All that is irrelevant to me.

              It's ridiculous. He can't replace Lance because he doesn't have the skills Lance does.

              If anybody can replace Lance it is Stuckey. And I have my doubts.
              When Hill was the 3rd option here he produced at a very high level, 14/4/5 is very good production for a 3rd option point guard, and is equal to what Lance gave us this season. Hill proved during 12-13 he is very capable of being a top option offensively, I don't see how you can say otherwise. I think you are underrating Hill offensively.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                No I think you guys love to ignore reality.

                The only thing George Hill does better than Lance offensively is shoot the three, and that is a very slim gap that is getting slimmer by the minute.

                BTW Ace, Lance started 150 games on a conference finalist before he reached 24 years old.

                George Hill started.......50.

                And you also ignore the fact he hasn't really improved his numbers (other than his majestic 14ppg of 21012-13 of course) since his second year, which is another sign how limited his talent is.
                George Hill also played behind 6 time NBA All-Star point guard Tony Parker for years in San Antonio and actually was starting AHEAD of Parker during the 2010 NBA playoffs. But we all know that George Hill is complete trash regardless of Popovich benching Parker for Hill at one point and and Lance Stephenson is a basketball god in every way imaginable.
                Last edited by BenR1990; 07-29-2014, 02:18 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                  Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                  George Hill also played behind 6 time NBA All-Star point guard Tony Parker for years in San Antonio and actually was starting AHEAD of Parker during the 2010 NBA playoffs. But we all know that George Hill is complete trash regardless of Popovich benching Parker for Hill at one point and and Lance Stephenson is a basketball god in every way imaginable.
                  Exactly, arguing against Hill as an offensive player is basically saying Popovich was wrong, which is very hard to do considering his track record.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                    Because this is the probably the 10th different thread we've had this exact same debate.
                    Yes, same debate, different questions. This is the first time I've seen you argue that 14pts is "average" so the point of my question was to find out if you thought Lance's 14 pts were also "average." I still don't know the answer.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Yes, same debate, different questions. This is the first time I've seen you argue that 14pts is "average" so the point of my question was to find out if you thought Lance's 14 pts were also "average." I still don't know the answer.
                      I think Lance's 14 points are better than Hill's 14 pts because Lance does it in a different way.... I think thats what I have gathered but I am not really sure.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        Sure, using your rules of comparison. He was the 5th option that year and the only years Hill was a 5th option he averaged 10 or less.
                        He averaged more than 10 last season, sooooo

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                          12.4 is less than or equal to 12. That pretty much proves your argument. Or is 2nd grade math picking at gnats, lol

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Given our lack of offensive system, the fact that Lance will probably see his usage soar while being next to the inefficient Kemba Walker, I'd feel safer in betting on Hill outproducing what Lance did for us last year (as that's what's been argued).

                            But screw it, it's all for fun. I'm down.

                            We've got to get a formal basis as to what production means however.
                            Nah Ace, that is YOUR argument, mine is that this viewpoint is irrelevant because Lance is gonna be a MUCH better player than Hill going forward. In my mind that is all that matters because THAT is the player we lost, not the guy from last year. After all I constantly get told that Lance isn't really any better than Hill and we are a better team with Hill playing a larger role than him.

                            Production means production. How many points you scored, how many boards you get, how many assists you make, how much of a load you carry for your team.

                            I would be willing to bet Lance tops Hill in FG%, PPG, APG, RPG and Minutes. In other word, better than Hill in virtually every way. I will also bet we don't win as many games as we did last year. Which if it is truly addition by subtraction, and we are better with Hill in that role, should be realistic. Because the rest of the team is virtually identical, and if Hill can truly replace Lance, then all we have to do is essentially replace Hill from last year, which shouldn't be too tough for Stuckey and Miles. JMO Hibbert playing better would be a huge plus and make that even easier. And in fact that is more of a wager that the entire team can replace Lance, not even one particular player. If Stuckey, Miles, Hibbert, West, PG and Hill can so easily replace Lance's production, then why can't we win MORE games?
                            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                              12.4 is less than or equal to 12. That pretty much proves your argument. Or is 2nd grade math picking at gnats, lol
                              It's picking at gnats kent.

                              So I guess you can all stop claiming Hill ever averaged 5 assists per game then. Cause it was really 4.7.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson Hater Thread

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                Nah Ace, that is YOUR argument, mine is that this viewpoint is irrelevant because Lance is gonna be a MUCH better player than Hill going forward. In my mind that is all that matters because THAT is the player we lost, not the guy from last year. After all I constantly get told that Lance isn't really any better than Hill and we are a better team with Hill playing a larger role than him.

                                Production means production. How many points you scored, how many boards you get, how many assists you make, how much of a load you carry for your team.

                                I would be willing to bet Lance tops Hill in FG%, PPG, APG, RPG and Minutes. In other word, better than Hill in virtually every way. I will also bet we don't win as many games as we did last year. Which if it is truly addition by subtraction, and we are better with Hill in that role, should be realistic. Because the rest of the team is virtually identical, and if Hill can truly replace Lance, then all we have to do is essentially replace Hill from last year, which shouldn't be too tough for Stuckey and Miles. JMO Hibbert playing better would be a huge plus and make that even easier. And in fact that is more of a wager that the entire team can replace Lance, not even one particular player. If Stuckey, Miles, Hibbert, West, PG and Hill can so easily replace Lance's production, then why can't we win MORE games?
                                Bulls are a lot better, and the Cavs are a lot better, both are in our division, so it wouldn't shock me at all for us to be a better team, but also lose more games than we did last season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X