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 Trader Joe View Post
    Also shout out to everyone who said the immortal Steve Clifford would unlock Lance's true stardom that the evil gatekeeper Frank Vogel had failed to unlock. You guys were the real MVPs of this whole event.
    I know that there are your fair share of Lance supporters and Haters....but who said this?

    I think that there are those supporters that say that he will do much better in a different offensive system that isn't so slow paced and that having a real low post threat and a better PG could make the difference ( which was what aamcguy suggested )...but not that Clifford was the guy that could make Lance a better Player.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I wouldn't say that he's a role Player.....cuz that implies that he's really good at filling one specific role on the Team.

      There's a difference between being a Role Player that is brought in to fill a specific role on the Team ( defensive specialist, 3pt shooter, rebounder ) and what ( at worst ) he can turn out to be....a bench Player that can help facilitate and run the offense ( maybe that's his role ) or ( if the correct situation exists on a Team ) a Starter that can be the 2nd ball handler on the Team ( which is shown that he is capable of and what he basically did here last year ).
      Lance is a role player. He may not have a clearly defined "role" (shooter, defender, etc) but he's a guy that needs other players around him, in a specific situation, in order to be effective. That is what a role player is.

      Role players can be starters, bench players, or whatever.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Also shout out to everyone who said the immortal Steve Clifford would unlock Lance's true stardom that the evil gatekeeper Frank Vogel had failed to unlock. You guys were the real MVPs of this whole event.
        Are you sure? I think the real MVP should go to the people mocking the article titled "Stuckey Will Make You Forget," considering Stuckey has been a much better player in less minutes per game.

        Comment


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

          I was very disappointed, but not that surprised when the Lance/Pacers era came to an end. I thought Lance, with Bird as his booster and advisor, and Frank Vogel as a player's Coach was an almost perfect situation for Lance to grow into an All-Star level player. That ship sailed, also.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            Are you sure? I think the real MVP should go to the people mocking the article titled "Stuckey Will Make You Forget," considering Stuckey has been a much better player in less minutes per game.
            Well to be fair, Lance's play this year has gotten most of us to forget him.
            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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Lance is a role player. He may not have a clearly defined "role" (shooter, defender, etc) but he's a guy that needs other players around him, in a specific situation, in order to be effective. That is what a role player is.

              Role players can be starters, bench players, or whatever.
              I guess we have different definitions of what a role Player is.

              To me, a Role Player is brought in to do one specific thing ( as you said; be a shooter, defender, rebounder, etc. ) irregardless of the situation or Team that he is put in. Players like Korver, Thabo, Tony Allen or Reggie Evans ( clear role Players ) would be as effective filling that specific role on whatever Teams that they are stuck on as long as he is just doing what he was brought in to do.

              I agree with you that Lance needs to be put in a specific situation to be effective.....but that's just a weakness that we are seeing now in what he brings to the table.

              Maybe it's simply better to say that he's a Bench ( as opposed to Role ) Player ( at worst ) and a Starter ( at Best ) if he finds the correct Team that can correctly pigeon hole his skill sets to fit what they need from him.

              In the end, maybe it's just the wording and how we use those words.....but I think we are talking about different things, so no need to further argue the point.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                I guess we have different definitions of what a role Player is.

                To me, a Role Player is brought in to do one specific thing ( as you said; be a shooter, defender, rebounder, etc. ) irregardless of the situation or Team that he is put in. Players like Korver, Thabo, Tony Allen or Reggie Evans ( clear role Players ) would be as effective filling that specific role on whatever Teams that they are stuck on as long as he is just doing what he was brought in to do.

                I agree with you that Lance needs to be put in a specific situation to be effective.....but that's just a weakness that we are seeing now in what he brings to the table.

                Maybe it's simply better to say that he's a Bench ( as opposed to Role ) Player ( at worst ) and a Starter ( at Best ) if he finds the correct Team that can correctly pigeon hole his skill sets to fit what they need from him.

                In the end, maybe it's just the wording and how we use those words.....but I think we are talking about different things, so no need to further argue the point.
                Agreed..it's all semantics lol. Its always interesting to see others point of view when it comes to terminology--such as role player

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I wouldn't say that he's a role Player.....cuz that implies that he's really good at filling one specific role on the Team.

                  There's a difference between being a Role Player that is brought in to fill a specific role on the Team ( defensive specialist, 3pt shooter, rebounder ) and what ( at worst ) he can turn out to be....a bench Player that can help facilitate and run the offense ( maybe that's his role ) or ( if the correct situation exists on a Team ) a Starter that can be the 2nd ball handler on the Team ( which is shown that he is capable of and what he basically did here last year ).
                  We are probably quibbling about definitions here. Lance has a very good skill. He is an excellent finisher on the move. An athletic Rodney Stuckey. Not as polished, but bigger, stronger, faster. He can rebound well for a guard. But that is the end of his high level skills. If a team needs those things, then he gives them that. But if not, Lance is just another guy. My feeling is that makes him a role player. A short list of superior skills that can be very very useful if used properly. Otherwise, he is just another average player.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                    We are probably quibbling about definitions here. Lance has a very good skill. He is an excellent finisher on the move. An athletic Rodney Stuckey. Not as polished, but bigger, stronger, faster. He can rebound well for a guard. But that is the end of his high level skills. If a team needs those things, then he gives them that. But if not, Lance is just another guy. My feeling is that makes him a role player. A short list of superior skills that can be very very useful if used properly. Otherwise, he is just another average player.
                    This is the InterWeb......the rule of law is that my opinion always trumps your opinion....and vice versa. So yeah, my definition is more righter than your definition. So,, Nana Nana Boo Boo

                    Now you did it, you compared Lance to Stuckey
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by MTM View Post
                      Thinking about Lance at the All Star Break, amazing how much difference a year makes. Last year he felt snubbed for being left off the East All-Star team. This year he can't stay in his own team's starting lineup. I doubt anyone considers him an All Star this year.
                      I know a couple of people that probably voted for Lance this year, lol!!

                      Comment


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

                        Mason Plumlee seems to endorse bringing back Andray Blatche, adding Lance Stephenson
                        http://www.netsdaily.com/2015/2/12/8...blatche-adding

                        "Yes. I’ve known Lance since high school. I’ve been a fan of his since we were in high school together. I think he’s a really good player. Obviously, I know everyone wants it for the Brooklyn aspect (Lance was born in Brooklyn), but having a team mate that’s aggressive and hungry and a competitor; you’re always going to be for that."

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          He only played one year under Larry Brown, the infamous Season We Do Not Discuss. From 97-98 to 99-2000 he was playing under Larry Bird. You know, the guy whose opinion on talent is permanent and immutable?
                          Jalen blossomed under Bird. Goes to show the right coach matters.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            I am a bonafide Lance hater who at one point last year considered Lance my favorite guy to watch on the entire team. HOORAY


                            I don't think Lance is a bad basketball player, but he is very dependent on his situation in order for his game to work. My point has been and continues to be, that Lance made a dumb decision. I said it LITERALLY the day the rumor came out that Lance was meeting with Jordan that he was not a good fit for the team in Charlotte and the contract he took just further solidified what an idiotic decision it was.

                            24 year olds with their whole careers ahead of them shouldn't have to take a team option in year 3 to get the contract number they want. The fact Lance's team let that go through is by far the most mind boggling part of the entire fiasco.
                            Very good post. For a Lance hater, you sure don't practice the typical revisionist history going on in this thread.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Jalen blossomed under Bird. Goes to show the right coach matters.
                              I would say Rose was simply able to handle more responsibility as Reggie aged. Lance has been given the opportunity to start and even have the offense "run through" Lance, but he has not capitalized.




                              I watch almost every Hornets game and they absolutely tried this and Lance's play got worse. You can't blame coaching or Kemba for his past almost two months.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                I would say Rose was simply able to handle more responsibility as Reggie aged. Lance has been given the opportunity to start and even have the offense "run through" Lance, but he has not capitalized.




                                I watch almost every Hornets game and they absolutely tried this and Lance's play got worse. You can't blame coaching or Kemba for his past almost two months.
                                Jalen didn't blossom until another coach took the reigns and it was about immediate. But it's not a perfect comparison at all Lance is playing really bad...worse than Jalen ever did. But to conclude that Lance is just a bad player ignores that he's already shown he can play well in the right situation. Perhaps it does take the right situation for him. I seriously doubt the Pacers are the only organization in the NBA where he would play well. There will be other chapters to this story even though the current one is quite dark for Lance.

                                As for the reason why he's stunk this year. Obviously it's the situation he's in. It's not like he forgot to play basketball in 6 months after playing his entire life and having a great season last year. It's just silly that haters refuse to acknowledge he was a good player last year which is a huge reason this thread broke 5K. Where did all that hate come from...?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X