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
    Did I really say that? In any event, I don't really need to think about it. I know the haters are questioning if Lance was really good last year...and I disagree with them. Not much to discuss at this point.

    In a year or two, people are going to deny he ever played for the Pacers afterall. The sky is green...the moon is red...
    So you are asking if you really said that and then you restate it in the same post, lol.

    You are implying that anybody that disagrees with you is delusional. This is why all the 'haters' 'pick on you'. You are trying to get people angry with you by insulting them.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
      So you are asking if you really said that and then you restate it in the same post, lol.

      You are implying that anybody that disagrees with you is delusional. This is why all the 'haters' 'pick on you'. You are trying to get people angry with you by insulting them.
      Well, there does seem to be some denying going on. I've listed a dozen objective facts that indicate he was a very good player for the Pacers last year. Yes, I think it's incontrovertible. It's just as true that he's playing bad this year. At least I can admit that.

      Comment


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

        BTW, if he wasn't a very good player for the Pacers do you all really think he would have been offered a 45M guaranteed contract by people who have a lot more basketball knowledge than the average PD poster?

        I know y'all don't believe he's any good but the franchise was clearly on my side.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          BTW, if he wasn't a very good player for the Pacers do you all really think he would have been offered a 45M guaranteed contract by people who have a lot more basketball knowledge than the average PD poster?

          I know y'all don't believe he's any good but the franchise was clearly on my side.
          You mean the same franchise that offered the horrible George Hill an almost identical contract?

          You are accusing people of denying the truth and revising history. I am on record as stating that Lance and George are the same level of player. That is backed up by the contract situations. The difference that makes Hill a core piece and Lance an expendable piece is their off court stuff. Hill is a leader and Lance is not.

          You are the one that was counting the All-star appearances. By the way you don't pay all-star type players 9 million per year. That contract offer shows me that the Pacers did not value him the way you do.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
            You mean the same franchise that offered the horrible George Hill an almost identical contract?

            You are accusing people of denying the truth and revising history. I am on record as stating that Lance and George are the same level of player. That is backed up by the contract situations. The difference that makes Hill a core piece and Lance an expendable piece is their off court stuff. Hill is a leader and Lance is not.

            You are the one that was counting the All-star appearances. By the way you don't pay all-star type players 9 million per year. That contract offer shows me that the Pacers did not value him the way you do.
            I am a fan of George Hill's game. I would never say he's a horrible player. But he doesn't have the same talent level as Lance Stephenson. That's not to say Lance is playing even as good as George Hill at this time...so by saying he's the same level of player is giving Lance more credit than he's due. He needs to prove it notwithstanding his circumstances whether or not that's fair to him.

            BTW, Lance's offer wasn't higher than George Hill's contract because Lance is still a wildcard. If Lance hadn't be carrying so much baggage he'd have less haters and more money in his pocket. The fact is, he may not mature and may never reach his potential. He is also a less proven commodity. He's higher risk, higher reward. With George Hill, you know what you have. He is a veteran player in the prime of his career. Lance is still a year or two from prime. George is a good player. He could start on a contender. But when the pressure was turned up last year by Miami, George handed the keys over to Lance. There is a talent difference and that becomes critical when it's time to perform in the playoffs. Anyway, I am certain that Bird thinks that Lance's ceiling is higher than George Hill's.

            ...and no I was not counting All-star appearances. Where are you getting this stuff? I said he was an all-star caliber player last year and I stand by that.

            Comment


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

              Vogel foolishly "handed the keys" to Lance last year and in the playoffs, going against what made us successful the previous year and playoffs. For various reasons, we were much less competitive against the Heat last year than we were in 12-13. Whether you think the change in who was the main ball handler within our offense was one of those reasons is up for debate.

              Lance being more talented than Hill is up for debate as well. As it sits right now, Hill seems like the better player between the two

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Vogel foolishly "handed the keys" to Lance last year and in the playoffs, going against what made us successful the previous year and playoffs. For various reasons, we were much less competitive against the Heat last year than we were in 12-13. Whether you think the change in who was the main ball handler within our offense was one of those reasons is up for debate.

                Lance being more talented than Hill is up for debate as well. As it sits right now, Hill seems like the better player between the two


                Lance has better physical tools but his head ain't right and the work ethic isn't there either. Er go, Hill is better at this time.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  Lance has better physical tools but his head ain't right and the work ethic isn't there either. Er go, Hill is better at this time.
                  I disagree. Hill is faster, quicker, and is more athletic in every way over Lance. All Lance has on him is 2 inches and is stronger.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    I disagree. Hill is faster, quicker, and is more athletic in every way over Lance. All Lance has on him is 2 inches and is stronger.
                    Lance has that "star handle", which gets people out of their seats, plus he is exceptional on the fast break, and can post up and bully people inside with his size. Lance has far more offensive talent than Hill. Hill is a better spot up pure shooter but that's it. Lance brings fire, intensity, and passion.... in the series versus Miami against players like Wade and Lebron he played fearlessly, and in games versus Miami as well. Hill on the other hand played scared a lot. He got under Wade's skin mostly because he's physical, even taking Wade in the post a few times. But alas, mentally Lance is not always focused.... and that's where all that ability gets flushed down the drain.

                    If I had to draft both players to start a team I'd choose Hill simply because mentally, he's not a wildcard.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      Lance has that "star handle", which gets people out of their seats, plus he is exceptional on the fast break, and can post up and bully people inside with his size. Lance has far more offensive talent than Hill. Hill is a better spot up pure shooter but that's it. Lance brings fire, intensity, and passion.... in the series versus Miami against players like Wade and Lebron he played fearlessly, and in games versus Miami as well. Hill on the other hand played scared a lot. He got under Wade's skin mostly because he's physical, even taking Wade in the post a few times. But alas, mentally Lance is not always focused.... and that's where all that ability gets flushed down the drain.

                      If I had to draft both players to start a team I'd choose Hill simply because mentally, he's not a wildcard.
                      Hill can shoot better, defend better, he plays smarter, I'd say even pass better outside of the occasional ooh and aah pass Lance makes. Far less stupid passes from Hill than Lance. Lance is bigger and stronger and has a superior handle that's about it.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                        Hill can shoot better, defend better, he plays smarter, I'd say even pass better outside of the occasional ooh and aah pass Lance makes. Far less stupid passes from Hill than Lance. Lance is bigger and stronger and has a superior handle that's about it.
                        Lance is better at rebounding, getting easy shots for team mates (see assist numbers), better putting pressure on the defense (forcing them to collapse due to penetration), contending with trapping defenses, better on the fast break. Hill is a better shooter and because he is mature he is a better defender. Lance's immaturity hurts him because he ball gawks and is careless, not because he doesn't have the ability. The entire team was filled with good defenders last year.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                          Right, but several other people on here are questioning if Lance was really as good as he looked last year. Isn't that a similar way of thinking? You don't think he is as bad as he looks this year. I don't think he is as good as he looked last year.

                          You have mentioned several times that anyone that disputes that he was "great" last year has an agenda, or doesn't know what they are talking about.

                          Just something to think about.
                          I don't know about that...
                          Lance was obviously as good as he looked.
                          The question is whether the system allowed him to be that good... and how committed he really was to the system for the entire year. Keep in mind a lot of people thought he freelanced (ha- pardon the pun) as the year went on to the point it became a team problem and hurt chemistry which sent the team spiraling from their early season lofty heights. OTOH, others thought the problem never was Lance, or he was only a part of a larger and possibly more complicated problem.
                          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

                            I think the Hill vs Lance comes down to Skills vs Talent. They seem the same but they are not. Hill has basketball skills. Lance is oozing with talent. No question about that. But no coach needs to harness "skills". But Lance needs a team and a coach who can harness his talent. If its even possible now. Before last years all star break Vogel was doing just that. After the all star break Lance threw his hands up and showed everyone how much "talent" he has. I would take Hill any day of the week.
                            It probably sounds like I dont like Lance but I do. I wanted to see him be a part of our team for the future. But with the turn of events I don't think things could ever go back to the way they were.


                            "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                            "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Lance is better at rebounding, getting easy shots for team mates (see assist numbers), better putting pressure on the defense (forcing them to collapse due to penetration), contending with trapping defenses, better on the fast break. Hill is a better shooter and because he is mature he is a better defender. Lance's immaturity hurts him because he ball gawks and is careless, not because he doesn't have the ability. The entire team was filled with good defenders last year.
                              I don't care about the immaturity excuses for Lance anymore, what is this his 5th year in the league? He isn't just out of college, if he can't get it by now no one knows if he ever will.
                              Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 02-15-2015, 05:43 PM.

                              Comment


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

                                I contend that Lance is not better at getting his teammates easy shots. Let's compare the stats from the last three seasons.

                                APG: (Slight edge Lance, but will most likely even out by the end of the season)
                                Lance: 2.9, 4.6, 4.9
                                Hill: 4.7, 3.5, 3.8

                                Per36: (Practically identical)
                                Lance: 3.5, 4.7, 6.0
                                Hill: 4.9, 3.9, 5.7

                                Per100: (Mostly identical, slight edge to Hill)
                                Lance: 5.2, 6.8, 8.6
                                Hill: 7.2, 5.7, 8.2

                                AST%: (Edge to Hill, but not by much)
                                Lance: 16.2, 22.1, 27.3
                                Hill: 23.4, 17.2, 29.4

                                Passer Rating (82games): (Again practically identical)
                                Lance: 5.1, 5.3, 7.2
                                Hill: 7.4, 5.0, 5.5

                                Asst/Bas Pass(82games): (Adv. Hill)
                                Lance: 3.8, 3.3, 3.9
                                Hill: 5.2, 4.5, 5.8

                                I believe this is another one of those myths about Lance and Hill that comes from Lance's flash. In reality you can make an argument for Hill (fewer turnovers) or you can make an argument that they are equals, but you can't make an intelligent argument that Lance is better.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X