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

    The 2nd tweet sounds more like opinion drawn from observation. Anyone could notice we crashed and burned in the second half of the season, but that's different from saying the Pacers being worn out has something to do with Lance. PG himself said that we simply "peaked too soon," hence "worn out."
    2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

    Comment


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

      The only quote I've read from a player is from George Hill who is part of our long term core but I don't expect players to start speaking to the media slamming Lance. Between this and reports from the media that Lance has caused dissension in the locker room and clashed with team mates, and the end results of what happened here last spring and is happening to the Hornets now I just don't want him on this team next year under any circumstances. However if the price were right such as a lottery pick and a young player I could see it being worth trading from him and buying him out. Since this season is almost a loss you'd only be biting the bullet on his salary for next year. It's a high price to pay for those assets and I don't see it happening. IMO the Hornets should just buy him out and get it over with.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
        The 2nd tweet sounds more like opinion drawn from observation. Anyone could notice we crashed and burned in the second half of the season, but that's different from saying the Pacers being worn out has something to do with Lance. PG himself said that we simply "peaked too soon," hence "worn out."
        It's not just observation, and he is clearly referring to Lance's problems with teammates. Stein claims, like the reports over the weekend, that Lance had the Hornets "exasperated in record time."

        Is the argument now that everyone in the national media is just picking on Lance? Stein is just making up stuff?
        Last edited by freddielewis14; 12-22-2014, 11:01 AM.

        Comment


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

          There are just way too many reports about Lance being a hindrance to disregard them. First the Charlotte beat writer, then Lowe, now Stein; earlier you had the Windhorst/Wells article in the summer, Bird admitting the lack of close/personal attention being a problem etc... Smoke/fire.

          "What would you do if you were in charge of the Hornets?" is a more interesting question. I don't think taking the ball away from Kemba is an option here, he's clearly their long-term choice. I'd probably make Lance the 6th man and playmaker of their second unit. Let Henderson start so that Lance can play with a shooter (Neal) and a PNR/PNP buddy (maybe Zeller? not sure who'd be the best option there). This way he gets to showcase himself until the trade deadline and may actually improve their bench play as well. It's not like the Lance-experiment can get any worse, it's only up from here. Now knowing Clifford, I'm not sure he'd want to give free rein to Lance but if they want to get something positive out of this it might just be the best idea.
          uno, due, trezegol!

          Comment


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

            The mental gymnastics some people play to shield Lance of any blame is becoming truly amazing.

            Comment


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

              Lance Stephenson's problems are only getting worse

              http://www.atthehive.com/2014/12/22/...-getting-worse

              It wasn't a good weekend for Lance Stephenson as rumors once again place the spotlight on him.

              Lance Stephenson did not have a very good weekend. The Charlotte Hornets have been struggling all season and Stephenson has found himself at the center of a lot of blame. He's a controversial figure and hasn't fit in well with the team this season so it makes sense to see blame get thrown his way. Except it goes deeper than that as things continue to get worse for Stephenson.

              Stephenson suffered a groin injury during the Hornets loss to the Phoenix Suns last Wednesday, causing him to sit out the next few games. The Hornets have now won two straight games, albeit against bad teams, and have looked very good in both wins. Setting up the question, are the Hornets better without Lance Stephenson?

              Then it got worse. According to a report from the Boston Globe, Stephenson has "clashed" with teammates this season.

              "According to league sources, Stephenson has clashed with teammates, and coach Steve Clifford has placed the onus of Stephenson's adjustment on the team's veteran players, hoping they could police themselves and convince Stephenson to become more of a team player. Stephenson may become a more attractive piece near the Feb. 19 trade deadline, but the Hornets would want value in return."
              This might explain why the Hornets wanted to trade Stephenson a month and a half into the season. If he's clashing with teammates, and wins aren't coming, then Charlotte would want to get rid of what they perceive to be part of why the losses are piling up. But maybe the Hornets are overreacting? Lets look at potential trade destination, Stephenson's former team, the Indiana Pacers.

              Weekend Trade Rumble: Heard various Pacers were asked if Indy should try to bring Lance Stephenson back. Response NOT one of encouragement

              — Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) December 22, 2014
              Oh

              That's Charlotte's challenge in trying to move Stephenson. Pacers were worn out by season's end & he had Hornets exasperated in record time

              — Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) December 22, 2014
              Oh dear. Well that's only one source. Lets check in with CBS's Ken Berger.

              "The Hornets aren't having much luck drumming up quality offers for Lance Stephenson, who they signed to a three-year, $27.4 million deal this past summer. After winning 43 games last season and making the playoffs, Charlotte is an abysmal 7-19 -- and chemistry, or lack of it, is a big part of the problem. The Pacers have had high-level internal talks about making a play for Stephenson, sources say, but there's a lot of hesitation -- and for good reason."
              Yeah, that makes sense. The Pacers did make an offer to Stephenson over the summer to try and keep him, but when he did not return nobody in Indiana seemed too broken up about it. It really doesn't make a lot of sense for Indiana to bring back a player that is now notorious for ruining locker room chemistry. Not unless they can swindle Charlotte out of a first round pick or better in the process, which Charlotte just doesn't want to do.

              While Stephenson isn't the only problem with the Hornets, he's certainly been a part of it. Kemba Walker's shooting struggles is taking its toll on Charlotte, especially in late game situations, as does a general lack of execution from the team overall. The Hornets are ranked in the bottom 10 in both offense and defense this year and it's very doubtful that the addition of one player is the cause of it.

              However, when things are bad and a team struggles, that's when locker room chemistry needs to be at it's strongest. If Stephenson is causing chemistry issues then there's no reason for Charlotte to keep him around. He is only adding fuel to a fire that is starting to get out of hand.

              Comment


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

                As for the differences in tone between Agness and Stein, I wonder if anonymity had anything to do with it. Didn't Agness ask the players in a post-practice media scrum? I'd imagine players are a little more PC with multiple voice/video recorders, and a little more free flowing with their opinions over the phone/texting.

                Complete assumption, as I don't really know how each reporter went about asking.
                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

                  Agness was interviewing in the locker room and at practice yes. It was in public.


                  Comment


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

                    There is an overwhelming amount of evidence against Lance now. He may end up kicking himself for not signing the deal the Pacers offered him, at this rate who knows how much money he'll make in this league after his current contract is up.

                    Comment


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

                      Michael Jordan has to be one of worst GM/Owners. lol
                      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                      Comment


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

                        It's clear Lance still has quite a bit of growing up to do. However, I do miss some of the "edge" he gave our team last year.

                        Comment


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

                          I knew I would eventually be vindicated that I didn't want Lance back, but even I didn't expect it to happen this quickly.

                          Lance is Artest 2.0.

                          Comment


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

                            But here is a question... Is Lance the reason last year went off the rails mid season or did the season go off the rails and then Lance became a problem and didn't help anything? If he really was a problem. Or even a distraction. It's funny we still haven't heard any stories explaining how Lance was the reason for the fall last year. Especially since they would've been handy PR blips and leaks when Lance didn't re-sign with the Pacers. Or now, when you'd think the Pacers wouldn't want him back if he's such a team cancer.

                            The entire thing is just strange....
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Shade View Post
                              I knew I would eventually be vindicated that I didn't want Lance back, but even I didn't expect it to happen this quickly.

                              Lance is Artest 2.0.
                              Except nowhere near as good.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                The mental gymnastics some people play to shield Lance of any blame is becoming truly amazing.
                                I'm on record many times in this thread that if "the core" or "the starters" don't want Lance back, I don't want him back either. That's not to say I give any credence to people who don't think he's extremely talented. There are a lot of different discussions going on in this thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X