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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
    2. Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Kyle Lowry, Kyle Korver, Boris Diaw, Zach Randolph and no doubt many others, were all players who couldn't fit in some places but were talented enough to become difference makers elsewhere. Not every talented player is an all-rounder.
    I agree. But nobody was singing these guys praises as anything close to a star player until they consistently began being difference makers. The way they became those consistent difference makers was by working on their faults. Lance has one good year, and all of a sudden hes considered to be a great player. It doesnt work that way.

    Also, with the exception of Randolph none of those guys you mentioned were partocularly high maintenance, immature players. Lance is. And right now his production and impact doesnt warrant dealing with those issues IMO. Last year was borderline, but even then a lot of fans and maybe some of his teammates seemed to be turned off from that fact.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-27-2014, 12:14 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Also, there's a reason why the Pacers, who know a lot more than most posters here, offered him more than George Hill.
      I'm confused - I thought he was offered less than GHill in the first year and that was what offended him to the point of leaving.

      Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
      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: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        This is looking like a terrible move by Lance to leave

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          I'm confused - I thought he was offered less than GHill in the first year and that was what offended him to the point of leaving.

          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
          I doubt that was a factor. Their contracts differ in how the dollars are allocated over 5 years, but Lance was offered a bigger contract. Lance, even with baggage, was offered a 5 year deal worth 44 million, Hill a 5 year deal worth 40 million he was extremely lucky to get. OTOH, Lance turns around and signs with Charlotte for a full million more than Hill over the next 3 years. So there we have two professional organizations willing to pay Lance more than G. Hill. I tend to agree with them.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Wow.

            Bill Reiter @foxsportsreiter · 3h 3 hours ago

            Also told me that, from the start, folks in Charlotte started to realize in Lance they'd bitten off more than they'd planned on chewing.
            0 replies 4 retweets 1 favorite

            Bill Reiter @foxsportsreiter · 3h 3 hours ago

            Was told a few weeks ago Lance Stephenson, not Paul George or anyone else, impacted Hibbert so negatively last season. Looking accurate.
            0 replies 7 retweets 3 favorites


            I think they are going to end trading him. They may HAVE to.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Roy must have gotten over it pretty quickly:

              https://twitter.com/hoya2apacer/stat...12825895985152
              Source: Twitter

              Oh, then there is this post:

              http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/roy-...rlotte-hornets
              Source: USA Today

              Hibbert loved Lance Stephenson apparently.
              Last edited by BlueNGold; 11-27-2014, 06:56 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Roy must have gotten over it pretty quickly:

                https://twitter.com/hoya2apacer/stat...12825895985152
                Source: Twitter

                Oh, then there is this post:

                http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/roy-...rlotte-hornets
                Source: USA Today

                Hibbert loved Lance Stephenson apparently.
                Maybe liked him off the court, but I highly doubt he was a fan of Lance off the court. Its looking pretty clear to me Charlotte isn't liking the return that they are getting on Lance.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  it was Bynum's fault. never forget.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    He's not fitting and it's been rough for him because he remains immature and the coach is not coddling him, not because he doesn't have the talent. Even the coach, who does not mince words, recognizes and said he has the potential to be a star player. He didn't say backup. He didn't say starter. He said the potential to be a star.

                    Also, there's a reason why the Pacers, who know a lot more than most posters here, offered him more than George Hill. It wasn't because he won attendance awards at practice. It's because they see the talent. So did Mark Boyle who said he and Paul George were the two most talented players on the Pacers.
                    No one is denying Lance's talent, my friend. Some people just don't know if Lance is ever going to reach his full potential.

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Perhaps the Hornets are reacting to Clifford just like the Pacers...seeing the team get worse over time. It was clear that JOb attacking players in the media didn't work. I think we have JOb II there in Charlotte.
                    I wasn't here during the JOB era but this truly seems quite possible.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Roy must have gotten over it pretty quickly:

                      https://twitter.com/hoya2apacer/stat...12825895985152
                      Source: Twitter

                      Oh, then there is this post:

                      http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/roy-...rlotte-hornets
                      Source: USA Today

                      Hibbert loved Lance Stephenson apparently.
                      You can like a person off the court even if that person affects you negatively on the court.

                      Personally, I don't think that Lance was an issue for Roy off the court. I remember both links that you posted quite vividly. But it's clear that Lance doesn't mesh well with players like Hibbert and Al Jefferson (post creators) on the court. I don't know how accurate Bill Reiter's tweet is but I could see that happening.
                      Last edited by Nuntius; 11-27-2014, 07:26 PM.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        I think the players like Lance. I also think that Lance's immaturity wore thin on guys over the course of a long NBA season. I have plenty of friends that are really cool guys and I like them, but if I were around them all the time, some of their personality traits would grate on me over time.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          Maybe liked him off the court, but I highly doubt he was a fan of Lance off the court.
                          My sense is that it was the other way around.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            I have proof that Clifford is a bad coach. Marvin Williams is starting over Cody Zeller. Marvin Williams has been a bum his entire career
                            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              I have proof that Clifford is a bad coach. Marvin Williams is starting over Cody Zeller. Marvin Williams has been a bum his entire career
                              Now that this is cleared up...
                              Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                I'm dragging this post over from the San Antonio post game thread rather than continuing to post on Lance over there.

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                I'm sure I commented on this a lot last year so I'll just give a brief synopsis. Generally speaking every single time he was taken out of a game, no matter the reason, he would be either muttering to himself or have his head hung. This wouldn't be so bad but he made a huge point to make sure that everybody knew he wasn't happy about being taken out. As the season progressed he got to the point he wouldn't even sit with his team mates while he was out of the game he would go stand in front of the owners seat and just hang out there. They initially tried to say it was because he was going to stand by Bird & I can tell you that unless Bird has some secret telepathy thing going on that Lance would no more be able to hear him than you would be able to hear me. Lance was just standing there for whatever reason. There were times after a play went wrong and Vogel had to call a time out that he would yell at George Hill, one time it got so bad that Luis Scola yelled very loudly to Lance to "cut that ***** out". During the losing streak each time he would come to the bench poor Caron Butler had to basically go hug Lance during time outs so that he wouldn't leave the huddle area. At some point in time every veteran on the team would take turns coddling Lance (minus West). When Danny was here Lance would seem to listen to him whenever he would talk and honestly Lance's antics really ramped up in the huddle after Danny was traded away.

                                I know none of that sounds like that much but the game is mentally taxing in the best of circumstances, having to babysit a grown man during all of this had to be mind numbing for the vets and stress inducing on the coaching staff.
                                This is indeed the concern with Lance Stephenson. The concern is not how capable the young man might have become on the basketball court. The concern has always been his maturity, from the day he was drafted. The maturity issue is exactly why I was livid when the Pacers drafted him...after the brawl team fiasco.

                                Was the babysitting worth the chance he and Paul might have become something really special in a few years? I suppose we will never know. As far as I'm concerned, they complemented each other. That's actually what I liked most about both of them. Paul with his rangy game, quickness and shooting. Lance with his ability to handle the ball, penetrate with force, dish and rebound. It's a tragedy Granger went down because we could have used his 3 point shooting. What an incredible combination that might have been. Perhaps out of our price range though.

                                But I must admit I don't think I would have tried to lock down Lance for 5 years...because maturity remains an issue. I'd give him another 3 years (like Charlotte) and see if he snaps out of it. I fully recognize he can be a P.I.T.A. demonstratively sulking and acting like a child out there. If he doesn't show some improvement on that front, then cut him loose. But I honestly think it was too early to make the call. I tend to always look at things longer term and I could see a window of a few years where that squad had a realistic shot...until DWest got too old. As it stands, we are going to need replacements at SG and PF as we move forward into the Paul George era.

                                Also, I respect how hard Solomon Hill and Rodney Stuckey are playing for the Pacers. At the same time, they are not the answer to play alongside Paul George if this team wants a realistic shot at a title.

                                Anyway, that's what I think of losing Lance. I never thought he was as good as Paul George. I thought he was a critical piece to a title run and a guy who could be Paul's partner down the road on the wing. We lost a player who was already very good and could have developed into something special. See, his development was all about maturity...not on the court. It might have manifested itself on the court and maybe off it. But if he matured out of that, I do believe he would have been a great player with a unique skill set to pair with our true superstar, Paul George.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X