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 LG33 View Post
    I see a lot of posters making snide comments after every good game he has, as if any criticism of him in the past was completely unfounded.
    I am definitely one of said posters, and I somewhat disagree.

    People were complaining about Hill without acknowledging the change in his role on the team or the fact that he did very well in 2013 as a 3rd offensive option for an EC finalist. They claimed he wasn't aggressive enough or that he was "scared", which simply wasn't true at all. His role was changed, and he did what he was told - and in turn it affected his production. But it shouldn't have made people forget about what he did in SA, or what he's done here as a starter. We INSTANTLY became a much stronger team the instance he replaced DC as our starting PG.

    And Hill may have done better in terms of dealing with the Heat's pressure last year, but Hill was actually our 2nd leading scorer in the Heat series in 2013, so I disagree that he played better last year in comparison. Hill is definitely playing the best that he ever has, but he's not THAT far off of where he was in 2013. It just took his absence for people to somewhat appreciate what he brings to the table. And there are still quite a few that can bring themselves to even do that.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 03-31-2015, 09:13 AM.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      People were complaining about Hill without acknowledging the change in his role on the team or the fact that he did very well in 2013 as a 3rd offensive option for an EC finalist. They claimed he wasn't aggressive enough or that he was "scared", which simply wasn't true at all. His role was changed, and he did what he was told - and in turn it affected his production.
      Is it possible that his role changed because he wasn't aggressive enough? Is it possible that Coach Vogel took the ball out of his hands and gave it to Paul George and Lance Stephenson in the hopes of getting better offensive production?

      Now obviously, some of Hill's critics on this board simply have a different opinion of what a point guard should do in an offense. These people would probably be better off directing their critiques at Coach Vogel, who determines the schemes and sets the roles. Other critics just wanted him to perform his assigned role better, or at least more consistently. This distinction is important, I think. On this forum, there is a tendency for one argument to take precedence over others - usually by virtue of incessant repetition - and this becomes the presumed narrative for all critics of any certain player.

      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
      Actually the perception on George Hill for some of us on this board hasn't really changed much in the last 3 years. There were plenty of arguments on Lance vs. Hill even last year. Aside from a few weeks at the beginning of last season, Lance hasn't done anything Hill hadn't done to that point. And I would say Hill's recent play has been even more impressive than Lance's at the beginning of last season.
      It was probably a mistake to post in the "All Things Lance Stephenson Thread", as my argument is Hill against Hill, not Hill against Lance. I did not mean to compare the two at all. The only statement I care to make about Lance Stephenson is to caution anyone against looking at his failure in Charlotte and extrapolating those results to Indiana. I think it's safe to say Lance made a mistake in leaving, but I don't know that you can convincingly make the same argument the other way, that the Pacers dodged a bullet by not resigning him.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by LG33 View Post
        I think it's safe to say Lance made a mistake in leaving, but I don't know that you can convincingly make the same argument the other way, that the Pacers dodged a bullet by not resigning him.
        If he was going to be the type of player on the court that he was the second half of the 2013-14 season, we dodged a huge bullet. It became pretty clear to me that as the season progressed, each game was about Lance and not the Pacers. Maybe some people enjoyed that, but I don't think it's productive to having good team chemistry.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by LG33 View Post
          Is it possible that his role changed because he wasn't aggressive enough? Is it possible that Coach Vogel took the ball out of his hands and gave it to Paul George and Lance Stephenson in the hopes of getting better offensive production?
          I believe Vogel changed Hill's role because hypothetically, Hill was considered to be better off the ball (pretty good spot up shooter, good off screens, etc) while Lance was considered to be better on the ball (ball handling, facilitating, etc). Towards the beginning of the year, Lance and Hill had very similar usage, they were basically splitting ball handling and off the ball duties 50/50. Once Lance started having his 11, 13, and 10 games - Vogel began giving him the ball more, and Hill the ball less. ( I can argue all day why this was a mistake, but that's another argument for another conversation). In retrospect, Vogel should have brought one of these guys off the bench. Whether it was Hill or Lance, they should be in the role that Stuckey plays now. This would have maximized both players, as opposed to shortchanging one (Hill)

          Originally posted by LG33 View Post
          Now obviously, some of Hill's critics on this board simply have a different opinion of what a point guard should do in an offense. These people would probably be better off directing their critiques at Coach Vogel, who determines the schemes and sets the roles. Other critics just wanted him to perform his assigned role better, or at least more consistently. This distinction is important, I think. On this forum, there is a tendency for one argument to take precedence over others - usually by virtue of incessant repetition - and this becomes the presumed narrative for all critics of any certain player.
          I've never thought the gripe about Hill had to do with his consistency. But at the same time, I've never really looked at George as inconsistent. I've always thought the G.Hill hate had to do with the way we run our offense, and the steady, "boring" way that he's always run it.

          For better or worse (and sometimes it's worse) Hill is a guy that does what he's told, to a tee. As opposed to breaking a play, and going off and looking to score, he sticks to the coaches words, and that can be a fault for a guy that is a pretty good scorer. People see the flashiness of other PG's throughout the league (there are so many greats out there today) and have an easy time thinking "our PG sucks" by way of being different.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by LG33 View Post
            Is it possible that his role changed because he wasn't aggressive enough? Is it possible that Coach Vogel took the ball out of his hands and gave it to Paul George and Lance Stephenson in the hopes of getting better offensive production?
            Probably not. Lance isn't the type of player who you want to stick in the corner and be a catch and shoot type player. Yes, he shot a good 3pt% last season, but he doesn't fit that type of role, at all.

            GHill's strengths are to have the basketball in his hands, like Lance, BUT GHill is also a pretty good catch and shoot player. So you have two guys that play similiar styles, one isn't a catch and shoot while the other is. When given the choice of deciding who is going to be the player you put off to the side, in a catch and shoot role, you want the better catch and shoot player.

            I don't think it has to do with Lance giving "better" offense, rather than GHill having a more diverse skillset.
            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 BenR1990 View Post
              If he was going to be the type of player on the court that he was the second half of the 2013-14 season, we dodged a huge bullet. It became pretty clear to me that as the season progressed, each game was about Lance and not the Pacers. Maybe some people enjoyed that, but I don't think it's productive to having good team chemistry.
              Fair enough, and I won't argue that point because a) I don't care to, and b) I mostly agree with it. Lance's greatest asset and biggest flaw was his confidence in himself. Add to that the fact that he was in a contract year, and I suppose we were bound to run into some troubles. The only what if in my mind is whether or not Lance could have continued his maturation process in Indiana and found a role here that both he and the team would be content with. I like to think, optimistically, that he could have, which is why I imagine Bird offered him another contract. That Lance turned it leads me to believe that Lance himself did not think so.

              I guess, in the end, I'm really just pointing out the obvious - that we know Lance in Charlotte doesn't work out, but we can only speculate what Lance in Indiana would be. (And I'll concede that the last things we saw out of Lance were not promising)

              Comment


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

                On a scale of stupid decisions....how stupid was Lance leaving 26 million guaranteed American dollars to go get DNP-CDs for a worse team? It is hard to remember a worse career decision from an individual athlete in a long time.


                Comment


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

                  Lance's rise-and-fall reminds me a bit of Jeremy Lin.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    Clifford JOB like with rookies playing or what? why can't Vonleh get any run? at least send the dude to the D League, he's just rotting on the bench doing nothing.
                    Well not nothing....



                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      On a scale of stupid decisions....how stupid was Lance leaving 26 million guaranteed American dollars to go get DNP-CDs for a worse team? It is hard to remember a worse career decision from an individual athlete in a long time.
                      Latrell Sprewell spurned 21 million guaranteed American dollars to instead never play in the NBA again. To be fair, though, how you gonna feed your family on just $21 million?

                      Comment


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

                        Every time George Hill has been allowed to be one of the main creators offensively he thrived. HIs numbers this year show a steady improvement from where he was in 12-13. Literally the only thing that derailed him was Lance being given the ball so much last year. Like I said all last year when people were clamoring to move him or calling for him to step up, there's a reason Hill was one of Gregg Popovich's favorite players of all time and there is a reason Lance is a guy that even Larry Bird eventually had to stop defending.


                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                          Latrell Sprewell spurned 21 million guaranteed American dollars to instead never play in the NBA again. To be fair, though, how you gonna feed your family on just $21 million?
                          Maybe its people with the initials LS?


                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            Lance's rise-and-fall reminds me a bit of Jeremy Lin.
                            That's pretty unfair to Jeremy Lin.


                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              That's pretty unfair to Jeremy Lin.
                              Yeah, I think people forgot just how big Linsanity was...I mean he was THE talk of sports for the couple months he was with the Knicks, Lance never got up that high. I think Lin's story was really the first major sports Twitter blowup story, I don't remember social media having much input before that.

                              Also, the Rockets threw all that money at Lin when he only played 35 games for the Knicks, Lance was in the league 4 years and was a key part of the last 2 seasons.
                              Last edited by Cactus Jax; 03-31-2015, 11:08 AM.
                              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                              ----------------- Reggie Miller

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Maybe its people with the initials LS?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X