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 Since86 View Post
    No, it's playing semantics by trying to say you can' steal something you don't have. Yes, that might be the LITERAL definition, but we're talking about common forms of speech.

    Let me give you another example.
    "Why aren't you with your GF anymore?"
    "X stole her away."
    "You can't see people....."

    Are you really being serious. Since you have all the stats and the time why don't you go back and look at every rebound Lance had last year and lets us know how many were stolen and how you come to that conclusion and maybe we can adjust his stats or maybe we lobby the NBA to start a new stat so we all won't be mislead.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
      Yes we all know PG is very good but it has nothing to do with the performance of the team without him at the start of the season to the performance of the team now also without him. Most of us thought that the play would improve when the injured returned so far it has been just the opposite. I would just like to hear why many people feel that has happened. I know Ian is hurt but this started before that.
      The team may never have been as good as the 7-9 record indicated for starters.


      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Remove context? Nope, once again I'm adding context. Let me show you.

        "Lance steals rebounds"
        "No he doesn't"
        "X, Y, Z have all said it."
        "I don't trust Y"
        "Frank Vogel said it"
        "Lance is a great rebounder."
        "Who said he wasn't?"
        "Great rebounders get rebounds others wouldn't."
        "See, right there pay attention to posts that are after you asking who!"
        THAT is what you consider context?

        Cherry picking statements to create your own narrative?
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
          Sooooooooooooo - why did such a player go to Cincy ?? Not exactly your powerhouse for hoops. At least since 40, 50 years ago.
          He'd have been a Kansas Jayhawk but Xavier Henry took his scholarship. During his recruitment was when that sexual assault case was hanging over him and there were plenty of questions about his eligibility and his handlers. His recruitment process was pretty damn toxic. None of that should be surprising. Also, none of it matters. This thread's gone on so long people are talking about his high school career. C'mon fellas.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
            Are you really being serious. Since you have all the stats and the time why don't you go back and look at every rebound Lance had last year and lets us know how many were stolen and how you come to that conclusion and maybe we can adjust his stats or maybe we lobby the NBA to start a new stat so we all won't be mislead.
            And we'd add another stat to NBA.com that you'd reject.
            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 Taterhead View Post
              THAT is what you consider context?

              Cherry picking statements to create your own narrative?
              Please show me where I'm wrong. UB's post about great rebounders was AFTER I asked who said Lance wasn't a great rebounder.

              I should have kept my original post, pointing out that the discussion was about whether or not Lance stole rebounds not whether or not he was a great rebounder. I bet UB's post, was in response to your strawman.
              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 Taterhead View Post
                4 City Championships
                All Time NY State Scoring Champion
                Big East Freshman of the Year
                2 year starter in the NBA, 2 trips to ECF


                Now dig up Solo's basketball resume and compare the two.
                I know you're just addressing the poster that brought up their high school and college resumes, but you can't hold the fact that Solo is playing on an injury ridden team right now against him. They both need to play for a while before you can really talk about either of their "resume's" - because neither list is long.

                Solo's resume isn't half bad though:
                2 year starter at famed Fairfax HS
                3 year starter at Arizona
                2 time all Pac-12 first team
                2012 Arizona Male Athlete of the year

                And right now, during his first full year of playing time, Hill is producing at a similar level as Lance has in his 3rd full year of playing time. Not too shabby

                All in all, it shouldn't be Hill vs Lance though. Outside of being versatile, they're as different as different can be.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                  I don't need to dig up anything. We're discussing Lance. Any why Lance went to Cincy instead of a top hoops school.

                  Dig up THAT answer. (That's OK - we all know the answer.)
                  And what does that have to do with ability?

                  You don't want to dig it up because it wouldn't support your ridiculous POV.
                  "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                  Comment


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

                    How do you guys feel about Solomon Hill needing a haircut? The homeless look has kind of grown on me honestly.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      The problem with this thinking is that everyone can have a different perception when discussing specifics within the game of basketball. That's why things like stats, media reports, etc are often utilized - in order to prove one's point. They cannot be utilized as an entire basis for a point every time there's a discussion, but if we didn't use these things, it would be nothing but arguing opinion vs opinion.

                      A sports writer like Lowe, (who has been a self proclaimed Lance lover for a while now), has no reason to be influenced in any direction. He calls it like he sees it. Do I always think he's right when giving his analysis? No. But I do think he provides strong facts that back up his argument most of the time.
                      Exactly that is why everything pretty much is subjective. You should not base your own opinion on what is seen thru someone else's eyes. Especially if you feel you have a knowledge of the game. If you are a person who has played it , coached it, officiated it, scouted it and pretty much been around it your entire life I think you should be able to form your own opinion based on your own expertise. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to others opinion but the final decision should be your own. You should take anything you read with a grain of salt while considering where that opinion comes from.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                        How do you guys feel about Solomon Hill needing a haircut? The homeless look has kind of grown on me honestly.
                        I say cut it!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          Yes he does.

                          Too bad that has NOTHING to do with anything being talked about but ok.
                          Why not? You said Lance gets rebounds, so does Reggie Williams.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            I know you're just addressing the poster that brought up their high school and college resumes, but you can't hold the fact that Solo is playing on an injury ridden team right now against him. They both need to play for a while before you can really talk about either of their "resume's" - because neither list is long.

                            Solo's resume isn't half bad though:
                            2 year starter at famed Fairfax HS
                            3 year starter at Arizona
                            2 time all Pac-12 first team
                            2012 Arizona Male Athlete of the year

                            And right now, during his first full year of playing time, Hill is producing at a similar level as Lance has in his 3rd full year of playing time. Not too shabby

                            All in all, it shouldn't be Hill vs Lance though. Outside of being versatile, they're as different as different can be.
                            It shouldn't and I like Solo.

                            But it is riduliculous to refuse to acknowledge what Lance Stephenson has accomplished and knock the kid for mistakes he made 5 years ago.
                            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              I didn't ask you.

                              Try disputing his point.

                              Stealing means someone took something that's yours.

                              A loose ball belongs to no one.

                              Who is showing ignorance again?

                              This is better than when the St Louis PD tweeted out the definition of apology.


                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                And we'd add another stat to NBA.com that you'd reject.
                                Yea because it would be as ridiculous as some of the others I have seen on here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X