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 BlueNGold View Post
    You better start calling Bird that too. I wouldn't even say this about Lance:

    "It's just disappointing,'' Bird said. "When I'd go to practices, when he was on, he was by far our best player. And he worked. If you work as hard as he does, you're going to get better. I'm going to miss the kid, no question. And he's growing up. That stuff he pulled in the playoffs, that was out of the blue. But I knew how good Lance was and the value he brought to our team.''

    What actually happened is that two of the most talented NBA players of all-time, Bird and Jordan, both wanted to sign Lance Stephenson. This was going to be big news regardless of how it developed.
    Certainly Bird was the one man in a position to put money behind how much he thought Lance's value was. You can't bring up that quote to talk about how much Larry wanted to keep Lance and then not bring up that he led the FO that severely limited the amount that was initially offered and available to offer once the full MLE was used up.
    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

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      So...we have you on record comparing Lance Stephenson with Jon Bender? That shows how irrational things have gotten.

      Then we have aamcguy implying Lance may only be great during practices. Lance Stephenson led the Pacers in assists, FG% and rebounds last year. Jon Bender barely found a few backup minutes on the Pacers. Yes, as a SG, this supposedly "only great in practice player" led in all of those categories. That may just be unprecedented.

      This reminds me of the debate last year about Danny Granger starting over Lance. This year, this practice player, will be dominating our guards in the regular season. Don't believe that? That's fine. We can wait this one out too.
      You are right. I was implying something. I was implying Bird's praise of Lance isn't as high as you are making it out to be. He chose specifically to reference play that occurs behind closed doors, in a less competitive environment.

      Lance has flashes of brilliance when the chances he takes all go his way and it looks like he's dominating for 5 minutes or so. Then he makes a string of turnovers or gambles wildly on steals and his game is brought back down to earth.

      If he didn't so often give back the leads he helped build when he was on, he would have got a much better contract offer. Instead, you had an incredibly talented player who produced like a merely above average player.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


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

        I honestly think the biggest issue with losing Lance was either stupidity or poor advise from his agent. The difference in money wasn't that significant considering what he gave up here. For those of you who think it was the money keep this in mind, Larry could have easily offered more then the Hornets by either moving a player or simply cutting Scola so he either thought a lot of Scola or didn't think Lance was worth that much. Considering Scola's play what does that say about how Larry valued Lance. I'm glad he didn't since I think the money on the table was more then Lance was worth. As a friend who is a Portland fan put it, if you're the Hornets you have to overpay to land free agents and they overpaid.
        I wanted to keep Lance at the right price but I hated the length of that contract offered when you consider the risk. The Hornets were at least smart enough to get a team option which is what you should do with a high risk player.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          If he didn't so often give back the leads he helped build when he was on, he would have got a much better contract offer. Instead, you had an incredibly talented player who produced like a merely above average player.
          I see stuff like this all the time in Lance threads, and it's simply not true. He was +282 on the season, and there were only 42 players with better totals.

          Lance's mistakes were flashy and stood out, but in quantity weren't different from the other Pacers (not named David West). He was a huge positive on the floor for us, and I'm surprised that's argued.


          Right now I'm trying to think positively about Lance leaving, but I don't have much to go on. I have hope for two things: 1) that Lance hurt the ball movement, and that will now improve, and 2) that he had a strong negative influence in the locker room and hurt team chemistry. Otherwise, his loss is almost as significant as Paul's loss. Paul's a better player no doubt, but we lost a lot of strengths and dimensions when Lance left.
          Last edited by imawhat; 10-13-2014, 10:54 AM.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Which is exactly why I asked you:
            He's wrong, but he didn't leave Indiana to be the man somewhere else. He already thought he was the man.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              You are right. I was implying something. I was implying Bird's praise of Lance isn't as high as you are making it out to be. He chose specifically to reference play that occurs behind closed doors, in a less competitive environment.

              Lance has flashes of brilliance when the chances he takes all go his way and it looks like he's dominating for 5 minutes or so. Then he makes a string of turnovers or gambles wildly on steals and his game is brought back down to earth.

              If he didn't so often give back the leads he helped build when he was on, he would have got a much better contract offer. Instead, you had an incredibly talented player who produced like a merely above average player.
              Look at the entire quote. Bird isn't saying Lance is only a great practice player. He is saying Lance is growing up, Lance is working and that will make him better. He is saying he believes Lance is going to be a great NBA player given time and maturity.

              As for his contract, it wasn't an insult and wasn't bloated like George Hill's. Charlotte gave him a better offer because it was shorter (and more for that matter) and the money is going to be higher in a couple years for Lance.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                I see stuff like this all the time in Lance threads, and it's simply not true. He was +282 on the season, and there were only 42 players with better totals.

                Lance's mistakes were flashy and stood out, but in quantity weren't different from the other Pacers (not named David West). He was a huge positive on the floor for us, and I'm surprised that's argued.
                George Hill was +319, and he's been a resident gripe on the overpaid list since he signed his contract here. And there's already been several threads in the topic so the data's there: Lance Stephenson, despite his giant following on this board, has performed at almost exactly the same level as George Hill the past 2 years.

                I never said lance was a net zero, I said he has the talent of a superstar but performs at the level of just an above average player.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                  George Hill was +319, and he's been a resident gripe on the overpaid list since he signed his contract here. And there's already been several threads in the topic so the data's there: Lance Stephenson, despite his giant following on this board, has performed at almost exactly the same level as George Hill the past 2 years.

                  I never said lance was a net zero, I said he has the talent of a superstar but performs at the level of just an above average player.

                  No, your exact words were that he so often gave up leads he helped build, and that's just not true.

                  People are wrong about George Hill too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    Certainly Bird was the one man in a position to put money behind how much he thought Lance's value was. You can't bring up that quote to talk about how much Larry wanted to keep Lance and then not bring up that he led the FO that severely limited the amount that was initially offered and available to offer once the full MLE was used up.
                    Bird probably thought he had Lance signed. Also, even after CJ was signed they could have squeezed out enough and they certainly could have given him the same offer as Charlotte.

                    Even if they thought he would deserve a huge pay check in a couple years...that they could not afford....they would still have offered him the same deal that he took with Charlotte...then traded him away. As it stands, he walked and the Pacers have nothing but a couple backups to show for it.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      No, your exact words were that he so often gave up leads he helped build, and that's just not true.

                      People are wrong about George Hill too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
                      I said that, but it doesn't mean I think he was a net zero. I think his plus-minus would have been a lot higher if he didn't have lapses in attention when he started to play well.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


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

                        The plus-minus for an individual player, particularly one like Lance who played with the backups more than George Hill, doesn't really mean much at all.

                        Edit: There is a reason Lance and Paul led the team in minutes. They were the two most effective players who weren't too old to put up that many minutes.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          He's wrong, but he didn't leave Indiana to be the man somewhere else. He already thought he was the man.
                          I asked about the POSSIBILITY. It's just telling when the only two possible scenarios you can come up with, is blaming his teammates (GHill/Roy) or the FO.
                          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 BlueNGold View Post
                            Bird probably thought he had Lance signed. Also, even after CJ was signed they could have squeezed out enough and they certainly could have given him the same offer as Charlotte.

                            Even if they thought he would deserve a huge pay check in a couple years...that they could not afford....they would still have offered him the same deal that he took with Charlotte...then traded him away. As it stands, he walked and the Pacers have nothing but a couple backups to show for it.
                            This still boils down to the idea that Larry Bird is both the guy who supposedly is so high on Lance that his opinion proves we made a mistake letting him go AND the guy in charge of the team that let him go. I mean, unless you think Donnie has a file of naked pictures of Larry and Magic, or that Pritchard held Bird down while Herb beat him up, or something.

                            Bird offered what he thought Lance was worth. That speaks a lot more loudly than what he said afterwards.
                            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

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              This still boils down to the idea that Larry Bird is both the guy who supposedly is so high on Lance that his opinion proves we made a mistake letting him go AND the guy in charge of the team that let him go. I mean, unless you think Donnie has a file of naked pictures of Larry and Magic, or that Pritchard held Bird down while Herb beat him up, or something.

                              Bird offered what he thought Lance was worth. That speaks a lot more loudly than what he said afterwards.
                              Let's assume the Simons had no say and Bird had complete control...

                              Most negotiations don't work that way. Bird would have offered what he thought Lance might accept...not what he thought Lance was worth. Most important though, as quoted above, Bird didn't get the chance to match Charlotte's offer...and they were willing to offer a shorter term. Not only that, they were willing to offer a player option...something Charlotte didn't even offer.

                              In other words, Bird told Kravitz he would offer a better deal than Charlotte.

                              Comment


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

                                The reasons why Lance left, the contract offer from the Pacers, their willingness to pare down the years...this. This is the new PD circlejerk, and an epic one it is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X