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 TMJ31 View Post
    Honestly I have no idea.

    Ever since Lance basically ignored Larry Bird's direct orders during the ECF last year I soured on him.

    I just don't know if he will ever "get it" permanently or at least for a lengthy stretch (a full season or two)

    He has a lot of physical tools and talent. He almost certainly would be playing best if he were still in a Pacers uniform.

    But frankly, I think we dodged a bullet.
    You could be right that we dodged a bullet. I think we just as easily could have tossed a player who, paired with Paul George, could have brought this team a title. It's like any other risk you take in life. I wouldn't have offered Lance 5 years BTW. Too big of a risk. I would have offered somewhere around 11M for 3 years.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Lance is a case where people were viewing him with blue and gold colored glasses. No one in basketball had as high opinion of him as those on PD.
      "Just ask Larry Bird and Mark Boyle, who know a thing or two more about basketball than anyone on here, what they think of Lance."

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Fixed...and this could not possibly be more true.
        Dont forget Gregg Popovich

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          That's not what he said.
          But it doesn't matter. He was basing everything off how Lance had been playing this year and how he and Kemba played together. Your comment was about Lance being a bench player if he returned to his 13-14 form--which he hasn't done, hence the reason he is currently a bench player.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            I'm not discounting him, you're overselling him. With you its always "if he does this", "when he does that", etc. He had a good year last year, but you make it seem like he's a major big time player (if you think he should make $10 mil+) but he's not there yet, and has taken a giant step back this year.

            Also you say there arent many wings that have his "pg skills", but the league values the ability to shoot much more than having said passing/ball handling skills. Shooting is valued more than at any other point in history.

            There are a number of wings that are starting solely because of their ability to shoot the ball (Kyle Korver, JJ Reddick, Danny Green, Khris Middleton etc), and there are very few wings that are getting high end starter money to be a jack of all trades, ball handling type. I would think the lack of major interest when he was a FA shows this trend.
            There are some exceptional shooters in the NBA right now who are on good teams. Shooting has always been critical though. Look at the Pacers from the late 1990's. They were all offense and pure shooting with Miller and Smits. But look at the Detroit Pistons years later...all defense. I don't agree that you need all great shooters on your team. We didn't have good shooters last year and if the players would have gotten along, we would have won...or at least we were favored. IOW, the shooting is important but there is a lot of hype mixed in with Curry and Korver jacking so many threes.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              "Just ask Larry Bird and Mark Boyle, who know a thing or two more about basketball than anyone on here, what they think of Lance."
              Why thank you. Saved a few key strokes.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                There are some exceptional shooters in the NBA right now who are on good teams. Shooting has always been critical though. Look at the Pacers from the late 1990's. They were all offense and pure shooting with Miller and Smits. But look at the Detroit Pistons years later...all defense. I don't agree that you need all great shooters on your team. We didn't have good shooters last year and if the players would have gotten along, we would have won...or at least we were favored. IOW, the shooting is important but there is a lot of hype mixed in with Curry and Korver jacking so many threes.
                I dont disagree completely. But teams aren't handing out $10+/yr to average scoring, non shooting, 2guards. They just aren't.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I dont disagree completely. But teams aren't handing out $10+/yr to average scoring, non shooting, 2guards. They just aren't.
                  Lance had not proven last year that he was worth the money...or it would have been offered. So, I will agree he had to do more than he did last year to get there. I would have paid a couple Mil premium (11/M for 3) to hang onto him and I wonder if the Pacers would have done that if given the chance to match. Roll that dice for a few years and if he's a bust move on. I thought it was worth the risk and I wonder now how we will get the talent to move up the food chain. Yes, I believe he has the talent.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    I think you just revealed why you discount him. Scoring isn't where he's helping a team. Consider everything he can do on the floor and ask yourself how many players can do all of those things. How many 2 guards hit the glass like that? How many are that strong with the ball and see the floor like that? How many 2 guards have PG skills like that? How many run the break that fearlessly? Yes, he needs to work on his shot but imagine him if he starts nailing it. If he returns to form and improves his shooting just a bit, he's easily above 10M/year. Obviously he has put himself in a huge hole at this point.
                    This sounds like something I would have written about Lance while he was a Pacer, when I was blinded by my homerism for Lance. I desperately wanted Lance to blow up and become an all-star franchise level guy, and I thought he was on that track. Now that he is a Hornet, my eyes are wide open about the kind of player Lance is. Lance is a me-first player. He cares about scoring points. It really bothers him when he cannot score. If his team wins, and Lance doesn't score one point, then he isn't happy at all. Lance is also a selfish player. The only reason he makes these flashy passes is so that he can be praised for how great of a pass it was. He would rather make a nice pass to make himself look like a good passer than actually helping his teammates win games. A good passer is Boris Diaw. He gets the ball, and is constantly thinking how to make sure his team is in the best position to score. Lance gets the ball, and if he hasn't made is mind up to shoot, he is thinking how can I drop a dime here so I can get on Sports Center, and rack up another assist on my stat sheet. In Lance's defense, I really don't think he knows any other way to play basketball, and was mismanaged as a teenager. Conditioned to be the star player at all times. Lance first because he was the best player. Team a distant second. He has to have the ball at all times, and make the game about him, not the team
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


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

                      I don't think we had rose colored glasses on last year with Lance. We tended to love him, warts and all, because he did play well. I liked him especially because he seemed to care about playing, as opposed to West and Hibbert, who seemed happy to lose, laze around, and basically ***** all the time.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        I don't think we had rose colored glasses on last year with Lance. We tended to love him, warts and all, because he did play well. I liked him especially because he seemed to care about playing, as opposed to West and Hibbert, who seemed happy to lose, laze around, and basically ***** all the time.
                        This is complete garbage.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          I don't think we had rose colored glasses on last year with Lance. We tended to love him, warts and all, because he did play well. I liked him especially because he seemed to care about playing, as opposed to West and Hibbert, who seemed happy to lose, laze around, and basically ***** all the time.
                          So because Lance was demonstrative (at the point to which he became a distraction) he "cared" where others didn't? Sorry, not buying it. Sounds like someone trying to excuse his antics.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            This sounds like something I would have written about Lance while he was a Pacer, when I was blinded by my homerism for Lance. I desperately wanted Lance to blow up and become an all-star franchise level guy, and I thought he was on that track. Now that he is a Hornet, my eyes are wide open about the kind of player Lance is. Lance is a me-first player. He cares about scoring points. It really bothers him when he cannot score. If his team wins, and Lance doesn't score one point, then he isn't happy at all. Lance is also a selfish player. The only reason he makes these flashy passes is so that he can be praised for how great of a pass it was. He would rather make a nice pass to make himself look like a good passer than actually helping his teammates win games. A good passer is Boris Diaw. He gets the ball, and is constantly thinking how to make sure his team is in the best position to score. Lance gets the ball, and if he hasn't made is mind up to shoot, he is thinking how can I drop a dime here so I can get on Sports Center, and rack up another assist on my stat sheet. In Lance's defense, I really don't think he knows any other way to play basketball, and was mismanaged as a teenager. Conditioned to be the star player at all times. Lance first because he was the best player. Team a distant second. He has to have the ball at all times, and make the game about him, not the team
                            I just have to respectfully disagree with this.

                            Lance gets more energized by assists than points. Part of his attraction is his ability to impact beyond points scored.

                            No doubt his desire to have some flash costs the team once in a while. But many times they lead to a score. And you could argue that he also creates runs that turn games around that are sparked by spectacular plays. I'm not saying this is a tight argument for allowing him to do it. I'm arguing against the idea that he doesn't have a motivation beyond being a show off.

                            Lance's game has deteriorated because he can't shoot. Add that back to his game and he makes a great impact, helps the team, and all his other assets become valuable. Without a decent shooting percentage, he hurts his team.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              I just have to respectfully disagree with this.
                              I don't find your (yours and Pacergeek's) posts to be at odds.
                              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 BRushWithDeath View Post
                                This is complete garbage.
                                No it's not. I'm assuming by your poor response you didn't watch the 2nd half season collapse last year, when Hibbert became a liability and West stood around yelling at the refs. Therefore I'll forgive your response.
                                Danger Zone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X