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 Coopdog23 View Post
    the only thing is that Lance will probably be the guy in Charlotte. Jefferson was their best player last year, but I'm sure Lance will be their guy eventually
    I don't know how to say this delicately, but I think that statistically he is going to chase triple doubles more than he is the raw glamor stat of PPG. And I know that gets immediately twisted into him being selfish or something, but I think it's quite the opposite. He's going to want to be the guy who gets the supplementary stats and runs the show in that sense, as opposed to being the typical talented SG who goes for points while everything else is an afterthought.

    I think he's gonna have a line close to 16/7/7, with the points only being that high because the referees are finally going to start giving him some respect when he drives and gets mauled.

    As for people saying why not just be a Charlotte fan, well a lot of us will. They're not gonna be our primary team, Pacers are always first, but I rooted for Charlotte last year, they were likeable enough. And now they've added one of the most electrifying young guards who was a fan favorite for the Pacers. Why wouldn't I root for them? Maybe if I had some tremendous level of dislike for the guy, but that's childish. I'll also be watching a lot of Cleveland games. Focusing solely on the Pacers this season might make me depressed, and sports aren't about that.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
      Absolutely. I also think Vogel played a role too. He cannot design a decent offense, and Vogel's style is not fun to watch and I imagine not fun to play under either. Lance will have more free reigns to push the ball in Charlotte.
      If Lance ( for whatever reason ) factored in any of what you suggested ( IMHO, I doubt that he did ) into his decision to stay or go ( even if it was a small and minor consideration ) because he didn't like playing with GH and/or Hibbert, thought that the offense was "not fun to watch" nor "fun to play" under Vogel's coaching, then I am glad that Lance is gone.

      This is the NBA, not playing pick up ball at the school or at some Park where you get to decide how you want to play and to "have fun".

      You are there to work, help the Team and win a Championship. You don't have to like your Teammates, but as Professionals....the second that you step onto the court, you leave all that stuff on the bench, play how your Team wants you to play, you go into battle with your Teammates side by side and shoulder to shoulder, you play how your Coach wants you to play and you do what you do to help the Team. If a Free Agent is factoring in inane stuff like "Player X and Y is so frustrating to play with for whatever reason" or "Coach runs such a vanilla offense that is so boring" when it comes to deciding where you want to play in the future, then that's the type of Player I don't want on the Team. I could care less that he has the potential of Lance...I want a Player that plays within the Team itself and isn't out there for himself.

      I don't blame Lance for leaving.....I wish he stayed, wished the Bird just would have just given him a 3 year deal ( which I have no idea why that didn't happen ).... but I understand why he did what he did and wish him well in Charlotte.

      With that said....since I am 99% sure that Lance left because of the $$$ and length of contract that was offered to him, none of what you suggest IMHO applies to Lance.
      Last edited by CableKC; 10-01-2014, 12:46 PM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        If Lance ( for whatever reason ) factored in any of what you suggested ( IMHO, I doubt that he did ) into his decision to stay or go ( even if it was a small and minor consideration ) because he didn't like playing with GH and/or Hibbert, thought that the offense was "not fun to watch" nor "fun to play" under Vogel's coaching, then I am glad that Lance is gone.

        This is the NBA, not playing pick up ball at the school or at some Park where you get to decide how you want to play and to "have fun".

        You are there to work, help the Team and win a Championship. You don't have to like your Teammates, but as Professionals....the second that you step onto the court, you leave all that stuff on the bench, play how your Team wants you to play, you go into battle with your Teammates side by side and shoulder to shoulder, you play how your Coach wants you to play and you do what you do to help the Team. If a Free Agent is factoring in inane stuff like "Player X and Y is so frustrating to play with for whatever reason" or "Coach runs such a vanilla offense that is so boring" when it comes to deciding where you want to play in the future, then that's the type of Player I don't want on the Team. I could care less that he has the potential of Lance...I want a Player that plays within the Team itself and isn't out there for himself.

        I don't blame Lance for leaving.....I wish he stayed, wished the Bird just would have just given him a 3 year deal ( which I have no idea why that didn't happen ).... but I understand why he did what he did and wish him well in Charlotte.

        With that said....since I am 99% sure that Lance left because of the $$$ and length of contract that was offered to him, none of what you suggest IMHO applies to Lance.
        I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think he did make his decision in significant part due to the things Grimp laid out … not just money.

        Yes, once you've signed the contract, all those points of professionalism you noted are spot on. But when you are deciding whether or not to sign a contract to join a team, all those other factors are fair game, and cannot be considered unprofessional, in my opinion. And it certainly can be argued that the different style in Charlotte may lead to wins, just like in Indiana.
        "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

          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
          Yeah - winning all those games sure wasn't fun.

          And exactly what you mention about Lance will be his downfall. Hell - even Jordan needed structure to an offense to win titles.


          Structure is one thing, but not creating a decent offense is another. Vogel needs to go to "O" school or hire an assistant and dump all the "O" responsibilities off onto him. Then everyone comes in the next morning, and hands in their homework..... so to speak.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think he did make his decision in significant part due to the things Grimp laid out … not just money.

            Yes, once you've signed the contract, all those points of professionalism you noted are spot on. But when you are deciding whether or not to sign a contract to join a team, all those other factors are fair game, and cannot be considered unprofessional, in my opinion. And it certainly can be argued that the different style in Charlotte may lead to wins, just like in Indiana.
            If that is the case, then I'm glad that Lance is gone.

            Someone is going to have to tell me, I don't watch Charlotte play....so I have no idea. Is Charlotte's offense a more "run and gun / faster paced" offense than the Pacers? Will it better suit Lance's more frenetic style of play?
            Last edited by CableKC; 10-01-2014, 01:04 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              If that is the case, then I'm glad that Lance is gone.

              Someone is going to have to tell me, I don't watch Charlotte play....so I have no idea. Is Charlotte's offense a more "run and gun / faster paced" offense than the Pacers? Will it better suit Lance's more frenetic style of play?
              Charlotte played at a slightly slower pace and was a worse team offensively in terms of shooting and efficiency - Statistically speaking.

              Anytime you have Al Jefferson as your number one option, you're going to play a bit of a slower pace.

              Comment


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

                So you're saying Frank's plodding inefficient offense is the reason why Lance left?
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Charlotte played at a slightly slower pace and was a worse team offensively in terms of shooting and efficiency - Statistically speaking.

                  Anytime you have Al Jefferson as your number one option, you're going to play a bit of a slower pace.
                  They were almost exactly the same pace-wise. They were a really bad shooting team, but much better than the Pacers at assisting on shots and not turning the ball over.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    They were almost exactly the same pace-wise. They were a really bad shooting team, but much better than the Pacers at assisting on shots and not turning the ball over.
                    They had a few different strengths and weaknesses than we had - but still graded as a bit of a worse team offensively than the Pacers.

                    It certainly defeats the idea that Lance decided to leave in order to play within a faster paced type of offensive system.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      They had a few different strengths and weaknesses than we had - but still graded as a bit of a worse team offensively than the Pacers.

                      It certainly defeats the idea that Lance decided to leave in order to play within a faster paced type of offensive system.
                      Oh yeah, I don't think pace had anything to do with it. Money either. Pace just doesn't make sense, and money because the rumor was that he didn't even approach the Pacers for the same type of deal. If he'd told Larry "match this deal and I'll stay" I believe Larry would have found a way to make it work. This leads me to believe it was locker room stuff, and specifically with Roy.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        Oh yeah, I don't think pace had anything to do with it. Money either. Pace just doesn't make sense, and money because the rumor was that he didn't even approach the Pacers for the same type of deal. If he'd told Larry "match this deal and I'll stay" I believe Larry would have found a way to make it work. This leads me to believe it was locker room stuff, and specifically with Roy.
                        "Rumor". I wanted us to offer the Charlotte deal, but with a player option for year three. I posted it a week before he got the offer. It makes total sense to want a shorter deal when you think your undervalued.

                        Comment


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

                          IIRC, it seems like Lance committed to a 4 year deal with Charlotte having the 4th year option and not Lance? I am of the opinion that Bird heaved a sigh of relief when Charlotte(or anyone) offered a slightly better deal and Lance took it. I thought the Pacers made it quite clear they didn't want or expect Lance back when they started signing players and using up the "Lance money" right away. Could be wrong, but I would have seen it that way if I were Lance or his agent. I also disagree that a player in Lance's position shouldn't factor in his relationship with teammate's and/or his Coach's style when thinking about committing the next 4 or 5 years of his life and career to a team

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                            IIRC, it seems like Lance committed to a 4 year deal with Charlotte having the 4th year option and not Lance? I am of the opinion that Bird heaved a sigh of relief when Charlotte(or anyone) offered a slightly better deal and Lance took it. I thought the Pacers made it quite clear they didn't want or expect Lance back when they started signing players and using up the "Lance money" right away. Could be wrong, but I would have seen it that way if I were Lance or his agent. I also disagree that a player in Lance's position shouldn't factor in his relationship with teammate's and/or his Coach's style when thinking about committing the next 4 or 5 years of his life and career to a team
                            Wasn't it a 3 year deal? The option was a head scratcher.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Its like once Lance assumed a larger role laat year, everything that has happened with this team and its players in previous years suddenly became moot.
                              That's absolutely what happened with some people. This behavior tends to happen when someone discovers his holy ox.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


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

                                Hornets coach on Lance:
                                http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...l#.VC2xIFZOhs4

                                While Clifford is excited about ex-Indiana Pacer Stephenson’s potential, he sees the 6-foot-5 swingman as far from a finished product.

                                “I’ve been around Kobe (Bryant) and (Tracy) McGrady and (Latrell) Sprewell in his prime. Lance isn’t there yet,” Clifford said. “Lance was 13 1/2 (ppg.) last year. He’s young and talented. His efficiency shooting the ball, getting his turnovers down (need to improve). For us to talk about him as a legitimate All-Star player who we can play through, that’s the jump he needs to make and he knows that.”

                                After studying video of Stephenson this summer, Clifford concluded it’s best that Stephenson not see himself first as a scorer, but rather focus on versatility.

                                “I don’t know if for him to play well it will ever be really big scoring numbers,” Clifford said.

                                “He naturally plays in a way to make the right play – he hits the roll man a ton on pick-and-roll. He’s not a hungry scorer, which to me is a good thing. If you surround him with shooters, he can be a handful in pick-and-roll. Pass, rebound, he defends well. He’s a guy who can play well in all aspects of the game.”

                                Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#storylink=cpy
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X