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 Cactus Jax View Post
    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.
    I mean Lin wasn't a garbage pile in Houston or in LA either. Lance is legitimately one of the worst heavy minute players in the NBA this year with a per of 9.05 (shoutout Solomon for also being pretty terrible at 10.4, but at least he's basically in his rookie year). Lin's lowest career PER was his second year in Houston at 14.31. Lin gets a bad wrap because the hype his first big year in NYC was just stupid big, but honestly he'll probably end up being a pretty good backup point guard on a contender at some point in his career based on all his stats.


    Comment


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

      Just shows 2 things. 1. Michael Jordan is terrible at his job. 2. Players benefit greatly by being in certain schemes.

      Chasing money is such a short sighted goal. He was already a millionaire and was going to make bank by staying or leaving. If he stayed in Indiana, he could have had an even larger pay day at the end of it. Players really need to look at scheme fit. Just look at Turner. He was looking like he was going to hit the big time, got traded to the Pacers *insert whoopie cushion noise*. While that wasn't on Turner to get traded, but scheme really helps certain players.

      Another example is Kawhi Leonard. I'm still a little upset at the trade, but he doesn't become the player that he is in a Pacer uniform. Pop's system plays to his strengths.
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
        Chasing money is such a short sighted goal. He was already a millionaire and was going to make bank by staying or leaving.
        And this is where the NBPA fails their members. Considering the bankruptcy rate for ex-NBA players, they would have a much larger impact if they put forth more effort in educating players about financial issues. They could teach their members how to do more with "less" and be financially set for the future, instead of needing to get as much money as quickly as possible. Instead of looking for the pay day, they could look for some stability.

        I really can't imagine the quality of life being all that different for a player that makes $7M compared to a player making $10M.

        Lance would have been in a much better position, all the way around, had he looked at his decision through the basketball lens instead of the money lens.
        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 Since86 View Post
          And this is where the NBPA fails their members. Considering the bankruptcy rate for ex-NBA players, they would have a much larger impact if they put forth more effort in educating players about financial issues. They could teach their members how to do more with "less" and be financially set for the future, instead of needing to get as much money as quickly as possible. Instead of looking for the pay day, they could look for some stability.

          I really can't imagine the quality of life being all that different for a player that makes $7M compared to a player making $10M.

          Lance would have been in a much better position, all the way around, had he looked at his decision through the basketball lens instead of the money lens.
          But also the money lens, his ego got too crazy...going on this path he's not going to sniff anywhere near that 26 million dollars he left on the table, he's going to be a min salary guy after these 2 years are over, and his best hope is that Larry shows some love afterwards and would bring him back at about that minimum salary.
          "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 LG33 View Post
            Well, George Hill himself insisted he wasn't a point guard, so he must be stupid as **** as well.

            Flippant retorts aside, I think a serious point needs to be made here, and it's the following: Just because George Hill is playing great this year, it doesn't mean he has always played great. 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. It wasn't. There were reasonable concerns expressed by reasonable people in a reasonable manner.

            I have no desire to rehash these past debates, but I will allow David Aldridge to summarize this point: "Hill was better against Miami in the playoffs last year than he was in 2013, when he disintegrated against the Heat's pressure in the Eastern Conference finals. But he was determined to get better." And he undoubtedly did get better. Credit George Hill for acknowledging his shortcomings and working on his game. He looks much better - more confident, more aggressive, more in control of the offense - than he did at any other time in his Pacers tenure. So while we can get excited about his future, let's not distort his past.
            Yeah, GHill is a humble person, I doubt he wanted to brag about his abilities as a PG until he mastered the position. All of 12-13 GHill did feel like he wasn't playing his natural position. But- he was also playing the most minutes of his career, and having the best season of his career at the time. Another year in the same role would have only made him better.

            By the way, those of us that were upset at Hill's role change in 13-14 are upset at Vogel. It was Vogels fault. He made a mistake.

            Lance CAN play off the ball. Not great, but ok. He did it in 12-13, cutting to the basket and the like. But it wasn't ideal. Which is why so many of us, the "George Hill" supporters, argued vehemently that Danny Granger should have started all season. Why? It wasn't because we all thought Granger was better, (tho we did believe that) it was because he was a shooter, and in our minds a much better fit for the offense. Lance could have come off the bench.

            Point is- fans recognized the problem with having so many ball handlers started long before Vogel forced a role change in one of his best players. So there's no excuse for Vogel not realizing the problem with the offense.

            Anyways, I continue to bring up Hill when I talk about Lance because here in Pacer land, Lance and Hill very much had to do with each others success. Lance's success come at the expense of the far superior player GHill. Ultimately, as good as a coach as Vogel is, that is HIS fault.

            The good news is, I doubt he makes a mistake like that ever again. And his insistence on putting either Miles or Rudez on the court almost at all times also means he probably realizes the importance of shooting. Had he figured this out last year the Pacers would probably have a championship, but **** happens.

            Comment


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

              By the way, it's something that none of us considered by had Vogel been on it in 13-14, realized how bad a fit Lance essentially was? Larry probably would have traded him at the deadline for assets, whether it was a draft pick or maybe a shooter.

              Comment


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

                Oh and one more note about the "GH3 said he's not a point" comment. Players don't always realize what position is the best for them. If you ask Hill 5 years from now, I"m sure he'll look back and say, "Thank god I was given the opportunity at point" but you know we had a Pacers player a few years ago say he was playing out of position. He was wrong too.

                Jalen Rose was convinced that he was a point guard. That wasn't his best position tho. SF was. Which is why he excelled in Indiana after earning himself a starting job.

                IF George Hill is a shooting guard? And I would have told you this 2 years ago, then at best he's nothing more than a bench player. A scorer off the bench. If he's a point guard? Then he's every bit the point guard Jeff Teague and Mike Conley are. So. Yeah.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  By the way, it's something that none of us considered by had Vogel been on it in 13-14, realized how bad a fit Lance essentially was? Larry probably would have traded him at the deadline for assets, whether it was a draft pick or maybe a shooter.
                  I don't think Lance is a bad fit with the Pacers, just a bad fit with the Hornets. I still think Lance would have worked out great in the Rodney Stuckey role.
                  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 Since86 View Post
                    I don't think Lance is a bad fit with the Pacers, just a bad fit with the Hornets. I still think Lance would have worked out great in the Rodney Stuckey role.
                    THat definitely could have been a decent role for him, but I think his ideal role is with a fast paced team.. The ideal modern "pace and space" team.

                    I say he was a bad fit in Indiana because when he was playing at his best, it came at the expense of his team.

                    Comment


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

                      Just an FYI. Since Hill has been starting the Pacers have averaged 105.2ppg.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        And this is where the NBPA fails their members. Considering the bankruptcy rate for ex-NBA players, they would have a much larger impact if they put forth more effort in educating players about financial issues. They could teach their members how to do more with "less" and be financially set for the future, instead of needing to get as much money as quickly as possible. Instead of looking for the pay day, they could look for some stability.

                        I really can't imagine the quality of life being all that different for a player that makes $7M compared to a player making $10M.

                        Lance would have been in a much better position, all the way around, had he looked at his decision through the basketball lens instead of the money lens.
                        I mean....what money lens was Lance using? Because it was busted as ****.


                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by mattie View Post
                          By the way, it's something that none of us considered by had Vogel been on it in 13-14, realized how bad a fit Lance essentially was? Larry probably would have traded him at the deadline for assets, whether it was a draft pick or maybe a shooter.
                          I don't agree with this at all.


                          Comment


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

                            Lance's only chance now is to work his butt off all summer and learn to shoot. Apart from that, his career is all downhill.
                            "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 Trader Joe View Post
                              Well not nothing....

                              LOL at Vonleh's response.
                              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 Eleazar View Post
                                Just an FYI. Since Hill has been starting the Pacers have averaged 105.2ppg.
                                Maybe I'm reading the wrong stats....but for the months of February and March....the Pacers have been averaging 100 and 101 ppg.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X