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

    B-A-D shooter

    Comment


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

      OK, have it your way. But over in the Roy thread don't be arguing with people using one really horrible stat to show that it means Roy was really horrible, because it is what you are applying to Lance.

      He was average or somewhat below (his 10-16 ft was right on the average) on everything but 3s. I would venture to say that if you just used backcourt players instead of all NBA players, his at the rim of well over 50% for the season would also be above average, but we'll stick with your numbers. Your position is clearly that the historic low from 3 wipes everything else out - therefore, in your mind, one bad stat trumps all others.

      And that's never mind understanding what the standard deviation is from the averages you post (in percentage points), which you really need to know in order to truly understand where he was in comparison to the rest of the league.

      Lance was not a good shooter. He was a terrible shooter from 3 last year. But saying he is a bad shooter overall is not a given.

      My problem with Lance was never so much his shooting as it was his decision-making. And that may be what we're seeing play out in the numbers here as well. We need more than one hotrrible season of 3-point shooting to make that determination.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


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

        I'm fine with calling Lance a horrific shooter, primarily because I sincerely don't care. While I actually believe he may be below average at that skill, I just don't consider it that important. If I did, I probably wouldn't like Lance all that much because out of 20 basketball skills it may be his weakest skill. The point is, the fact he's not a great or even good pure shooter doesn't mean he cannot be a borderline all-star player on a title team.

        The fact is, if Lance was an average or slightly above average shooter he'd probably have made the all-star team in 2014...with nobody but his haters blinking an eye.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          think you're just mixing things up between "not good" and "bad". I'd say the very definition of "bad" is the opposite of "good," or maybe "not good."
          Has this thread come to this ?? Almost as funny as Clinton defining 'sex' a while back. Almost.

          That's good. Or not bad. Or not good, but bad.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            I'm fine with calling Lance a horrific shooter, primarily because I sincerely don't care. While I actually believe he may be below average at that skill, I just don't consider it that important. If I did, I probably wouldn't like Lance all that much because out of 20 basketball skills it may be his weakest skill. The point is, the fact he's not a great or even good pure shooter doesn't mean he cannot be a borderline all-star player on a title team.

            The fact is, if Lance was an average or slightly above average shooter he'd probably have made the all-star team in 2014...with nobody but his haters blinking an eye.
            If Lance were an above average shooter, this conversation would be about whether or not Lance was living up to the max contract Larry Bird signed him to.

            IMO.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              If Lance were an above average shooter, this conversation would be about whether or not Lance was living up to the max contract Larry Bird signed him to.

              IMO.
              Max contract?

              If Lance was an above average shooter his FG% would have been around 60% for a guard. Yes, based on his supposedly horrific shooting, that may well be the truth. I suppose y'all wouldn't have thought that was good enough either...even if it were HOF numbers.

              Can't wait until this season starts.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Max contract?

                If Lance was an above average shooter his FG% would have been around 60% for a guard. Yes, based on his supposedly horrific shooting, that may well be the truth. I suppose y'all wouldn't have thought that was good enough either...even if it were HOF numbers.

                Can't wait until this season starts.
                If defenders couldn't back way off of Lance and dare him to shoot, Lance would actually be able to put his other skills to use all the time. Offensively he would be unguardable. His bad decisions wouldn't matter as much because he would be able to create good shots from anywhere on the court and many of his bad decisions stem from taking jump shots he shouldn't be taking.

                He doesn't have that ability, and probably never will. If a team can use him so his good traits are highlighted and his weaknesses are hidden, he will look like a good player. But his skillset and playing style makes him a player more dependent on his teammates than most.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  I'm fine with calling Lance a horrific shooter, primarily because I sincerely don't care. While I actually believe he may be below average at that skill, I just don't consider it that important. If I did, I probably wouldn't like Lance all that much because out of 20 basketball skills it may be his weakest skill. The point is, the fact he's not a great or even good pure shooter doesn't mean he cannot be a borderline all-star player on a title team.

                  The fact is, if Lance was an average or slightly above average shooter he'd probably have made the all-star team in 2014...with nobody but his haters blinking an eye.
                  You don't consider shooting that important? From a shooting guard? In today's "pace-and-space" NBA? Really?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    If defenders couldn't back way off of Lance and dare him to shoot, Lance would actually be able to put his other skills to use all the time. Offensively he would be unguardable. His bad decisions wouldn't matter as much because he would be able to create good shots from anywhere on the court and many of his bad decisions stem from taking jump shots he shouldn't be taking.

                    He doesn't have that ability, and probably never will. If a team can use him so his good traits are highlighted and his weaknesses are hidden, he will look like a good player. But his skillset and playing style makes him a player more dependent on his teammates than most.
                    While I think he's still a young player who can develop his game, I can buy most of this post. He will either need to be in the right situation (not perfect) or he will need to develop that part of his game. The dude doesn't have to turn into Ray Allen to overcome that weakness though.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      You don't consider shooting that important? From a shooting guard? In today's "pace-and-space" NBA? Really?
                      No, that's not what I am saying. You have to read that in the context of the entire paragraph, including the last sentence. I don't think he needs to improve his shooting to be a great player. That will take the "right situation", however, unless he does shore up his shooting. So, sure, I certainly do think shooting is important. I just don't think poor shooting prevents him from being a great player.

                      I don't think the "right situation" is only the 2013-14 NBA Pacers. Also, in Charlotte his issues may well have been mostly shooting woes, but I think it went beyond that. There is a mental aspect to it that I think he was struggling with there. But we shall see how LA goes. An entirely new situation on the west coast with a number of good shooters opening up the floor and bigs who run it better than most in the NBA...and get up and around the rim...let's just say that is a polar opposite situation from Charlotte and his performance could very well turn around. Even his haters say they think he will play better in LA, although that's probably just hedging their bets. We really need to poll on how he will do.

                      Comment


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

                        Haven't even thought about Lance in months. However this last post of B&G's got me thinking. IMO, if Lance can except that he is playing on Chris Paul and Blake Griffin's team, he could well get himself back in the NBA conversation. Lance has enough talent, speed, strength and passing ability to be a really good player. He just HAS to find his place on the team and work his butt off on his jump shot. One more year like he had in Charlotte and he may well be in the D League
                        or playing in Europe or China.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                          Haven't even thought about Lance in months. However this last post of B&G's got me thinking. IMO, if Lance can except that he is playing on Chris Paul and Blake Griffin's team, he could well get himself back in the NBA conversation. Lance has enough talent, speed, strength and passing ability to be a really good player. He just HAS to find his place on the team and work his butt off on his jump shot. One more year like he had in Charlotte and he may well be in the D League
                          or playing in Europe or China.
                          Even if he fails in LA, someone will still take a chance on him and sign him to a small contract. But if he fails miserably again, you could be right. It could be his ticket out. I just don't think it will play out that way. IOW, I think Charlotte was an anomaly. The reason? He played in a worst case situation:

                          1) His PG was ball dominant.
                          2) His C was slow, ball dominant, space eater who often drew a crowd into the paint.
                          3) His PG and C had played together for years.
                          4) Nobody on the team could shoot from the perimeter.
                          5) None of the bigs ran the floor. The C was effective in the post by himself, but slow as molasses.
                          6) Charlotte didn't offer the same support as the Pacers in Vogel and Bird.

                          LA isn't going to be like this. Still, Lance has a lot to prove and I hope he does just that.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            No, that's not what I am saying. You have to read that in the context of the entire paragraph, including the last sentence. I don't think he needs to improve his shooting to be a great player. That will take the "right situation", however, unless he does shore up his shooting. So, sure, I certainly do think shooting is important. I just don't think poor shooting prevents him from being a great player.

                            I don't think the "right situation" is only the 2013-14 NBA Pacers. Also, in Charlotte his issues may well have been mostly shooting woes, but I think it went beyond that. There is a mental aspect to it that I think he was struggling with there. But we shall see how LA goes. An entirely new situation on the west coast with a number of good shooters opening up the floor and bigs who run it better than most in the NBA...and get up and around the rim...let's just say that is a polar opposite situation from Charlotte and his performance could very well turn around. Even his haters say they think he will play better in LA, although that's probably just hedging their bets. We really need to poll on how he will do.
                            It's not like the "haters" are going out on a limb there--Lance was one of the worst rotation players in the NBA last season. If he doesn't play better in LA, his career is in deep ****.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                              Haven't even thought about Lance in months. However this last post of B&G's got me thinking. IMO, if Lance can except that he is playing on Chris Paul and Blake Griffin's team, he could well get himself back in the NBA conversation. Lance has enough talent, speed, strength and passing ability to be a really good player. He just HAS to find his place on the team and work his butt off on his jump shot. One more year like he had in Charlotte and he may well be in the D League
                              or playing in Europe or China.
                              Its all about ego. If he can set his ego aside and be a role player he will be great on the Clips.


                              "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 cdash View Post
                                It's not like the "haters" are going out on a limb there--Lance was one of the worst rotation players in the NBA last season. If he doesn't play better in LA, his career is in deep ****.
                                I can agree with that. This coming year is pivotal in his career...and yes, it would be difficult for a tremendous talent like Lance Stephenson to have another year that bad.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X