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
    Next time you tell someone to take your offer or move on...let's see how they react.

    That right there could have been the issue.

    To be fair I have to do this all the time in my business. Most mature business people react positively if they are actually ready to make a decision.


    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Lance with another victory and decent outing under his belt.
      From an individual standpoint (and disclaimer I didn't get to watch the game), his stats looks like they have most of the year, which is why I had such trouble reconciling Clifford's inconsistent handling of Lance up until recently. Lance really isn't doing a whole lot differently right now. The Hornets got MKG back which is going to help them.
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-11-2014, 09:18 AM.


      Comment


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

        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
        He responded with a soft punch to Rondo's face when he got up so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Lance and maturity don't really belong in the same sentence.
        I didn't see the punch in the video you posted, but I was more referring to Pittman and Wade. Lance deserves credit for not going after Pittman.

        Comment


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

          My only issue ever with Lance "stealing" rebounds was exactly the same as Frank's - stop trashing Roy for Lance grabbing the rebound out of his hands. There are reasons I don't want my guys fighting each other for a rebound - at best it wastes clock, while at worst it causes a turnover when they both lose the ball.

          I would not consider Roy wrong to be unhappy with Lance because of it since he was getting eviscerated for being a bad rebounder. That goes directly to Nuntius' point about it only mattering depending on how the team feels about it.
          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 McKeyFan View Post
            Post #3030


            Post #3032
            Why did you leave out a relevant post?

            Here's the REAL timeline.


            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            Phil Jackson also said Dennis Rodman stole them.

            It doesn't matter if he steals them or not, that's what is funny, it doesn't make him any less of a great rebounder.
            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I great rebounder is a player who gets rebounds that the other team would have gotten if it weren't for him. it is not a rebounder who gets rebounds that his teammates would have gotten anyway.
            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Who said Lance wasn't a great rebounder? More strawmen.
            Notice Tater's great rebounder point, came BEFORE? UB was responding to Tater's post. Not to mention UB's post was posted 1 whole minutue before mine, which is why I didn't see it, because the page didn't refresh inbtween when I opened the thread and when I hit "post quick reply."

            Tater took a post that didn't say thing about about Lance being a bad rebounder, or a great rebounder, and automatically changed what I said into that. All you have to do is notice that Tater quoted my post to give that rebuttal. He took my argument and changed it to something else, to argue against it. Strawman.

            Thanks for leaving out the post in quesiton though, that really did some good.

            Maybe I should pick a logical fallacy of the day, instead of phrases.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-11-2014, 10:04 AM.
            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 cdash View Post
              He's a good rebounder. Why can't that be good enough? So his stats are inflated a little bit, we are talking like 2-3 boards per game, tops. Some games, it's zero.
              Because Lance can't just be "good," he has to be "great." Which is why comparing him to scorers, like Stuckey, is such a huge slap in the face to Lance. Everyone knows Stuckey's ppg are less than Lance's because.....well, they're just less.
              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 wintermute View Post
                Good post Kuq. And I agree with your larger point. It annoys me too that Lance steals rebounds, but what matters is the impact on winning. I feel a lot of Lance's flaws that people harp on here are similar. I also don't like, for example, Lance's exaggerated body language, or his flopping, or his stat hunting. But do these things significantly affect his ability as a player?
                I don't think it impacts Lance as a player, but it impacts his relationship with his teammates.

                Lance is stat oriented, we all know this. If Lance worries about how many rebounds/assists/points he has, isn't it safe to assume others do to? It bugs me too, but I understand why players are worried about their stats. They're not only judged by them, their pay rate is based off of them. So if you have a player that is constantly stealing a players rebounds, the player not getting the rebound is bound to get a little peeved at it, whether it's right or wrong, it's natural.

                I don't think players mind if the rebound is being highly contested, if a player swoops in and pulls down the rebound. I do think they mind when they're the only ones around and a teammate swoops in. I'm not saying it happened a lot, but a couple of times last year the ball went OB because a player was getting ready to get a rebound and Lance ended up coming over and getting in the way. When it happens, two, three, four times in a 20 game span, players are bound to get testy.

                It's not one thing with Lance. He's like your little brother who just taps your arm. Tapping your arm, by itself, isn't annoying. Tapping it over and over and over again, then it becomes annoying. Stealing rebounds is one aspect of Lance's tapping.
                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 Since86 View Post
                  Because Lance can't just be "good," he has to be "great." Which is why comparing him to scorers, like Stuckey, is such a huge slap in the face to Lance. Everyone knows Stuckey's ppg are less than Lance's because.....well, they're just less.
                  I know you're being facetious here, but this is a good example of what gets me going when talking about Lance. To some posters Lance is a great player. When the rebuttal is that his production is similar to certain players (86 used Stuckey in this case) it's quickly tagged as being an outlandish idea that anyone would question Lance's great talent.

                  I'm not saying Stuckey is a better player than Lance, because he isn't. But their production on the court (look at their PER) is more similar than Lance's production when compared to any other premier 2-guard (which his supporters believe him to be).

                  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 being facetious here, but this is a good example of what gets me going when talking about Lance. To some posters Lance is a great player. When the rebuttal is that his production is similar to certain players (86 used Stuckey in this case) it's quickly tagged as being an outlandish idea that anyone would question Lance's great talent.

                    I'm not saying Stuckey is a better player than Lance, because he isn't. But their production on the court (look at their PER) is more similar than Lance's production when compared to any other premier 2-guard (which his supporters believe him to be).
                    Not to pick on BnG, but to me he leads the charge on this one. Which is why (I assume) he feels the need to trash our current players or make passive aggressive posts about them when they have a bad game.

                    Again, really not trying to be a dick here, but BnG, you are so hung up on "talent". You mention it with Lance in almost every post about him, you cite it as why you don't think Solo will pan out, you cite it as the reason the Pacers are doomed to irrelevancy or whatever. I don't think anyone here denies Lance's talent. But his production, and the overall impact on a basketball game--and I'm not talking about rebounds, assists, and counting stats--I'm talking the little things players do to win games: team chemistry, helping the helper type of stuff. The positive contributions Lance makes with all his prodigious gifts are almost negated by the rest of the package. That's why I don't think Lance and Solo are that far off from one another at this point. Solo doesn't take anything off the table. Lance does. He brings more to it, but takes more away. The overall net impact they have is similar, in my eyes. I think if Lance were in a better situation that gap would widen a bit, but like I said before, I'm not giving Lance a pass for the mess in Charlotte--he chose to go there.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
                      Solo had 2 points and 0 rebounds
                      4 points and 3 assists, actually. Yes, he wasn't good but his backup (Damo) didn't outplay him and Solo was still doing a decent job on the defensive end.
                      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 Taterhead View Post
                        I feel like if you go get a rebound, you earned it by beating 9 guys to the ball. The rest of the guys need to sack up and either beat him to the ball or adjust. Anything else is counterproductive.
                        Colliding with your teammates in order to grab a rebound that would fall in their hand no matter what is quite counterproductive, imo.

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        The reason Lance does that is to get himself involved in the game. It fuels the rest of his game.
                        The same goes for every basketball player on Earth.

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        I don't see that as selfish at all.
                        I never said that it is selfish. I don't consider Lance selfish. He is a well-intentioned individual that just gets overcompetitive even when he doesn't really have a reason to do so.
                        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 Taterhead View Post
                          Well everyone who talks basketball with me usually spends time bickering with me about it. I love the sport, even more than the Pacers. I am probably even more passionate about american football, so it's a good thing you aren't a fan or we'd argue even more.

                          We just have different ideas about basketball. I am more a fan of the old school game than this newer version you have been drawn too. And old school NBA is night and day compared to now. Honestly the NBA has lost a lot of its luster for me the last 10 years or so.

                          So I am really not surprised at all about our differences of opinion.

                          Don't take anything I say personally.
                          What makes you think that I'm a fan of the "newer" version of the NBA? I may have started following the NBA in the past 3 years but my basketball education is rooted in European basketball (obviously, since I live in Europe and played the sport myself for nearly 10 years before ever thinking about following the NBA). European basketball is a lot closer to the old school game that you're referring to. At least, that's the case in the lower divisions that I used to play. Superstars do not exist, the coach is above everyone else, defense is the be-all end-all and when we foul someone driving to the hoop we really mean it. That's the kind of basketball that I love and this is why I was so heavily drawn in the lock-out Pacers squad.
                          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 Nuntius View Post
                            Colliding with your teammates in order to grab a rebound that would fall in their hand no matter what is quite counterproductive, imo.



                            The same goes for every basketball player on Earth.



                            I never said that it is selfish. I don't consider Lance selfish. He is a well-intentioned individual that just gets overcompetitive even when he doesn't really have a reason to do so.
                            You may not say he's selfish, but I will. :P

                            When he plays well, it's good for the team because he plays at a superstar level in spurts every now and then. Sometimes he plays terribly. Most of the time, he has a pretty decent give and take between the good and the bad.

                            I think he takes too many chances. The caveat is that if you force Lance to stop taking the chances he likes to take, you also take away his superstar moments. I just don't think they come along enough to make him worth any more than the contract we or the Hornkitties offered him. And if I were in charge of the Hornets the only reason I would have Lance would be to pick up a trade-piece because he simply did not fit with that roster.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              Well everyone who talks basketball with me usually spends time bickering with me about it. I love the sport, even more than the Pacers. I am probably even more passionate about american football, so it's a good thing you aren't a fan or we'd argue even more.

                              We just have different ideas about basketball. I am more a fan of the old school game than this newer version you have been drawn too. And old school NBA is night and day compared to now. Honestly the NBA has lost a lot of its luster for me the last 10 years or so.
                              I am a much bigger fan of the old school game than the newer version as well. Thumbs up there.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                My only issue ever with Lance "stealing" rebounds was exactly the same as Frank's - stop trashing Roy for Lance grabbing the rebound out of his hands. There are reasons I don't want my guys fighting each other for a rebound - at best it wastes clock, while at worst it causes a turnover when they both lose the ball.

                                I would not consider Roy wrong to be unhappy with Lance because of it since he was getting eviscerated for being a bad rebounder. That goes directly to Nuntius' point about it only mattering depending on how the team feels about it.
                                Hallelujah! This the only reason why I have ever talked about Lance's rebounding. I don't have any issue with Lance doing that. I don't consider it particularly detrimental to the team. I don't think that it matters so much.

                                But I just get so incredibly mad when people use this as an excuse to trash the rest of our players. Thank you for doing a great job at presenting my point.
                                Last edited by Nuntius; 12-11-2014, 12:16 PM.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X