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
    That is indeed a fact.

    It's also a fact that he was a key starter on a team that went to the ECF last year. A starter who may have been the most important player to get them out of the first round last year. Yes, THAT is a fact that his detractors don't have the honesty to admit.
    He ruined his own development though, by making a bad business decision.

    Comment


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

      Al Jefferson was clearly bothered by Lance's video bomb on tonight's post-game interview! Then a few seconds later he goes out and says "Kemba we miss you"! LOL!

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        But one thing we do know. It IS a fact that he was a key starter on a team that went to the ECF last year. A starter who may have been the most important player to get them out of the first round last year. Yes, THAT is a fact that his detractors don't have the honesty to admit.
        That's some mighty strong Lance tint you have there. I don't understand how anyone can make a case for a player who put up 5 and 7 points, respectively, in two of our four wins in a playoff series as clearly being the most important player in that particular series. Something doesn't add up there for me. I've said it before, but the clutch shots in that series late in key games were made by David West, not Lance Stephenson. I would argue that we had a number of players that contributed in those games, Lance definitely being one of them. But he was not by any stretch our most important player that series.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          That may be true, but I'm not sure that's a fact. Based on his performance thus far, that is an easy conclusion to make.

          But one thing we do know. It IS a fact that he was a key starter on a team that went to the ECF last year. A starter who may have been the most important player to get them out of the first round last year. Yes, THAT is a fact that his detractors don't have the honesty to admit.
          He was a key contributor, but he averaged 13, 7 and 4. That production can be found in other ways without the baggage that Lance brings.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Per 36 is, at best a shaky measure. In his case though, it's worse. He played 5 less minutes a game this year. Obviously he's well rested compared to prior years (or should be) and his per 36 are inflated because of it. It's a meaningless stat anyway and when you combine other facts like he's hardly on the court this year, it is pure misinformation.
            It's not a shaky statistic. It's used to accurately measure how well a player is rebounding, or scoring while he is on the court. Or to compare that play to other players.

            Here's what you should say if you want to correctly criticize Roy's play. "Obvious he is rebounding relatively well while he IS on the court, but the problem is he can't be relied on to play heavy minutes. That's a problem and directly correlates to how much of a factor he is during the course of the game."

            Based off his per 36 minutes, you cannot say, "Roy isn't rebounding the ball." You can say, "Roy is rebounding the ball well, but he isn't on the court long enough so he isn't as much of a factor rebounding as a guy like say, Cousins who can easily play 40 minutes."

            Does that make sense? If you need any help constructing an argument let me know.

            Comment


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

              So many times, statistics are posted to paint a clearer picture of whats happening on the court, but one "side" will dismiss the statistic because they're afraid it refutes their argument.

              In the case above, BnG wants to argue "Roy can't rebound," so when someone posts a statistic suggesting otherwise, his response is, "that statistic is bogus." It's a ****ing number. It isn't wrong. However, a quick look at exactly what the number is telling us would have allowed BnG to essentially back up his original argument to some degree: That is, that Roy isn't as big of a factor rebounding as some of the better rebounders in the league. This is true. Not because of a lack of ability however, but because Roy simply can't stay on the court for 35-40 minutes like an All-star should...

              Why? Can't we all decide to have some sort of honest debate? It's more fun that way.

              Comment


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

                Per 36 is an extremely important statistic. It isn't bogus in anyway. Here's a reason why- come the playoffs, nearly every starter has his minutes go up as some coaches value rest more than others. per 36 gives us an accurate way to compare the production of players across the board. One guy who scores 25 playing 40 minutes a game isn't scoring as much as another guy scoring 25 a game playing 30 a game.

                It happens all the time in the playoffs as well. Guys look like they're having big numbers increases in the playoffs when really, they're just playing more minutes, thus they have more opportunities to produce.

                Comment


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

                  There isn't a flaw in a statistic either as some would want to argue- You might say "player A's 36 numbers are equal to Player B who plays 38 minutes a game. But player A is only playing 10 minutes because he isn't that good! See, the stat is flawed!!" The statistic NEVER suggested Player A could equal player B's numbers if he started. It simply states the following fact: Player A is producing at a near equal level to Player B while he is on the court. Nothing more nothing less.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    There isn't a flaw in a statistic either as some would want to argue- You might say "player A's 36 numbers are equal to Player B who plays 38 minutes a game. But player A is only playing 10 minutes because he isn't that good! See, the stat is flawed!!" The statistic NEVER suggested Player A could equal player B's numbers if he started. It simply states the following fact: Player A is producing at a near equal level to Player B while he is on the court. Nothing more nothing less.
                    Stats are not flawed. I am saying that almost every conclusion I've seen drawn from stats on this board is seriously flawed. Per 36 means something in one context and is entirely misleading in another. In Roy's case, he's playing 25 minutes a game. That is a lot less time on the floor and that builds up over the course of a season and on back to backs. So, his per 36 should be higher since he's well rested. Also, consider the fact there are different players on the floor now. That is a huge factor in what his per 36 might be from one year to the next. For example...if I must. Say Roy is rebounding more now because Solomon Hill blocks out a lot better than Paul George...because Paul is further out on the court guarding the perimeter. That means the opposing wing is less likely to grab boards this year than last. I'm not saying this scenario is fact. Not at all. I am saying there are umpteen numbers of scenarios that might explain why his rebound numbers per 36 are higher.

                    I'm really sorry, but people just don't see all of these angles and I'm just scratching the surface.

                    Edit: comparing team rebounds while certain players are on the floor is also fatally flawed. Who was that player on the court with? Did the team take more risks to run fast breaks...leading to guys further out on the perimeter. The stats are such a tiny window into reality they simply aren't useful without a ton of analysis. That's why people have doctorate in this stuff.
                    Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-02-2015, 10:30 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      Here ya go: https://statistics.stanford.edu/acad...ctoral-program

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Stats are not flawed. I am saying that almost every conclusion I've seen drawn from stats on this board is seriously flawed. Per 36 means something in one context and is entirely misleading in another. In Roy's case, he's playing 25 minutes a game. That is a lot less time on the floor and that builds up over the course of a season and on back to backs. So, his per 36 should be higher since he's well rested. Also, consider the fact there are different players on the floor now. That is a huge factor in what his per 36 might be from one year to the next. For example...if I must. Say Roy is rebounding more now because Solomon Hill blocks out a lot better than Paul George...because Paul is further out on the court guarding the perimeter. That means the opposing wing is less likely to grab boards this year than last. I'm not saying this scenario is fact. Not at all. I am saying there are umpteen numbers of scenarios that might explain why his rebound numbers per 36 are higher.

                        I'm really sorry, but people just don't see all of these angles and I'm just scratching the surface.

                        Edit: comparing team rebounds while certain players are on the floor is also fatally flawed. Who was that player on the court with? Did the team take more risks to run fast breaks...leading to guys further out on the perimeter. The stats are such a tiny window into reality they simply aren't useful without a ton of analysis. That's why people have doctorate in this stuff.
                        No. They do see all the angles. They just don't draw any conclusions. You do, so you attempt to dismiss the stat because you want to make a conclusion in the first place. Here's a fact- Roy is rebounding relatively well, while he's on the court. Period. His per 36 show that. Now you might say rebounds per game are flawed because it doesn't take in account rebound stealing, or whatever, but once again that has nothing to do with "per 36." In this case you might argue why rebound percent is more important that rebounds per game. Either way, per 36 accurately compares players production to each other.

                        I'll give you an example. You might say Blake Griffin averages 23.1 ppg. You could compare that to another players production. Someone else might come in and say, "no he's not, see that's misleading, he scores because makes it happen for him. He wouldn't score if it wasn't for Chris Paul". That's besides the point. Griffin is scoring 23.1 per 36. Period. You can't argue he isn't. You can simply craft a separate arguing suggesting WHY it is he is producing the way he is.
                        Last edited by mattie; 02-02-2015, 10:38 PM.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          The stats are such a tiny window into reality they simply aren't useful without a ton of analysis. That's why people have doctorate in this stuff.
                          Yep, but the guess here is that you are not one of those people with a doctorate in this stuff.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            It's not a shaky statistic. It's used to accurately measure how well a player is rebounding, or scoring while he is on the court. Or to compare that play to other players.

                            Here's what you should say if you want to correctly criticize Roy's play. "Obvious he is rebounding relatively well while he IS on the court, but the problem is he can't be relied on to play heavy minutes. That's a problem and directly correlates to how much of a factor he is during the course of the game."

                            Based off his per 36 minutes, you cannot say, "Roy isn't rebounding the ball." You can say, "Roy is rebounding the ball well, but he isn't on the court long enough so he isn't as much of a factor rebounding as a guy like say, Cousins who can easily play 40 minutes."

                            Does that make sense? If you need any help constructing an argument let me know.
                            Actually, just looking at the per 36, you cannot conclude that he's rebounding better this year vs. any other year. It's one single stat that doesn't take enough into account to make a conclusion.

                            In any event, I'm not focused on whether Roy rebounds well or not here. I'm saying you cannot accurately conclude anyone was stealing his rebounds last year. There are too many factors. BTW, there was another flawed write-up that said Paul George was stealing more of Roy's rebounds than Lance. I don't believe that one either.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              No. They do see all the angles. They just don't draw any conclusions. You do, so you attempt to dismiss the stat because you want to make a conclusion in the first place. Here's a fact- Roy is rebounding relatively well, while he's on the court. Period. His per 36 show that. Now you might say rebounds per game are flawed because it doesn't take in account rebound stealing, or whatever, but once again that has nothing to do with "per 36." In this case you might argue why rebound percent is more important that rebounds per game. Either way, per 36 accurately compares players production to each other.

                              I'll give you an example. You might say Blake Griffin averages 23.1 ppg. You could compare that to another players production. Someone else might come in and say, "no he's not, see that's misleading, he scores because makes it happen for him. He wouldn't score if it wasn't for Chris Paul". That's besides the point. Griffin is scoring 23.1 per 36. Period. You can't argue he isn't. You can simply craft a separate arguing suggesting WHY it is he is producing the way he is.
                              I'm not denying the stat. I'm denying the conclusions being made with it. Sure, Roy has X boards per 36. That doesn't mean that just because his per 36 is higher this year, that he's a better rebounder or that someone was stealing his rebounds last year. All it means is that it's higher and many, many factors might explain that.

                              Comment


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

                                It's just as likely he was in a mental funk last year worse than this year. Have you not all seen him crash and burn enough?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X