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

    It's not completely out of the question that Lance was rested against GS so that he could be rested against POR, but he didn't get any minutes in the game prior to GS either. He also only played 19 minutes last night. So it brings that idea of rest into question a bit. He may have just fallen down depth chart while Doc tries something different.

    Edit: as Ben said, Lance could find himself back to getting close to 20mpg again. Although Wes Johnson has been playing well for them lately.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-21-2015, 08:45 AM.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
      Lance was back in the rotation tonight with almost 20 minutes. Like I said in the beginning of the season, I expected that starting 3 spot to be a revolving door of players at the beginning of the year. I think Doc honestly just wanted to give Lance a few days to sit back, relax, and refocus himself.
      It would be nice if Lance is back in the rotation.

      Comment


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

        Nice little article in the LA Times about Lance and his spotty playing time.

        He barely plays. He's benched for an entire game. He's in the starting lineup.

        It's hard to know what to expect from Clippers forward Lance Stephenson these days. His role continued to vacillate Friday when he started against the Portland Trail Blazers, one day after not playing at all against the Golden State Warriors.

        There was no need for a deep data dig to find the last Did Not Play — Coach's Decision of Stephenson's career before Thursday. Steve Clifford held Stephenson out of two games late last season with the Charlotte Hornets, though one could have been more accurately described as Did Not Play — Not Interested after Stephenson declined his coach's offer to enter a lopsided game in the final minutes.

        Stephenson's sitting out against the Warriors came only five days after he logged less than two minutes against the Detroit Pistons. It was pretty stunning stuff for someone considered one of the NBA's top young players as recently as a year ago, but Clippers Coach Doc Rivers said he did not speak with Stephenson about the benching.

        "We don't have to talk to guys every game," Rivers said.

        But didn't a DNP seem a little surprising after the Clippers traded for Stephenson in hopes he would become a playmaker and lockdown perimeter defender?

        Yeah, it happens, I swear," Rivers said.

        Stephenson started Friday in place of Paul Pierce, who was resting on the second night of a back-to-back situation. He had a nice baseline drive for a layup in the first quarter but missed two free throws and was on the receiving end of an animated discussion with Rivers during a timeout after having a shot blocked on another drive toward the basket.

        Stephenson appeared to take his benching against the Warriors well, standing and holding his arm aloft to celebrate a Josh Smith three-pointer in the fourth quarter.

        Stephenson had not exactly made the most of the minutes he received in his first 10 games with the Clippers, averaging 5.6 points, 3.0 rebounds and 1.9 assists on 37.3% shooting. Those numbers were all worse than the ones he had posted with the Hornets, albeit in a larger role for most of the season.

        The Clippers' commitment to Stephenson is for only one season and $9 million because they hold a $9.4-million team option for the 2016-17 season.

        Taking a breather

        Rivers was tempted to list another reason besides rest for Pierce sitting out.

        "Can you put age down as an injury?" Rivers quipped.

        Resting the 38-year-old forward on the second night of a back-to-back situation was something Rivers had said he would do based on feel. Pierce had played in the Clippers' first two sets of games on consecutive days but appeared to tire late Thursday against the Warriors, missing a layup in the final minute.

        "I think it's good for me," Pierce said of the rest, noting the Clippers are also in the midst of a stretch of three games in four days, including an afternoon start Sunday against the Toronto Raptors. "I was feeling a little tired right now."

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Time and time again we get reports that Lance isn't a problem. Instead, we get articles after other players leave that THEY were a problem. People just look at Lance and make the assumption that his theatrics are an indicator that he's a major problem That is NOT what we have heard about him at all. We HAVE heard that other players are a problem...but not much at all about Lance. But people just don't seem to be able to put two and two together and realize that he's not really a problem player. But go on...
          There are not shortage of articles concerning Lance being a locker room issue at Charlotte but that wasn't were I was going with my comment. It seemed like something must have happened between Doc and Lance for Doc to make the comment that he did at the time he benched Lance. Whatever it was Doc seems to have made his point and Lance is back in the lineup. His performance last night wasn't one to earn more playing time though.
          2 points and 1 assist in 19 minutes. They could have used a little help against Portland last night.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


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

            Don't feel sorry for Stephenson one bit.

            Comment


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

              Did Not Play — Not Interested after Stephenson declined his coach's offer to enter a lopsided game in the final minutes.
              'nuff said. NOW - does anyone want to say he's not a problem ??

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                Maybe because Pierce is a consummate pro, a guy who has won a title, has been a leader his entire career and has never in that entire time had any of Lance's issues. For you to act like this is in a vacuum is absurd. You can not compare Pierce to Lance like that and expect to be taken seriously.
                A little blood in the water and the sharks come swimming. Why should any of the haters in this thread be taken seriously. All they want is is an excuse to rag on the kid. It's more obvious now than ever.

                Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                  'nuff said. NOW - does anyone want to say he's not a problem ??
                  You feel like you found gold don't you. Lol. Plenty of veteran players don't want to play in garbage time.

                  Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                    A little blood in the water and the sharks come swimming. Why should any of the haters in this thread be taken seriously. All they want is is an excuse to rag on the kid. It's more obvious now than ever.

                    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                    So should all of us who don't unconditionally love Lance just leave the thread? You guys are so sensitive. BnG's argument was pretty silly, I'm sure if you were being honest with yourself you would admit that. It's not crapping on Lance, either. But a 38 year old future HoF player getting rest on the second night of a back to back...not much of a stretch. Why would Lance need rest? He's a young dude and there were articles floating that hinted at something else. Sorry, but it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to connect those dots.

                    Comment


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

                      Post wherever and whatever you want. Just don't preach about weather another poster should be taken seriously when you (the poster not you personally) have an obviously jaded viewpoint. When the weekly "Why is this thread still dominating the board?" Comment pops up , admit it's because at more than a 2/1 ratio his detractors scour the earth for any negative they can post about.

                      People who like Lance have a reason to still care. Why should a hater be taken seriously. Why would a non hater, non fan still care about this thread?

                      Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        Post wherever and whatever you want. Just don't preach about weather another poster should be taken seriously when you (the poster not you personally) have an obviously jaded viewpoint. When the weekly "Why is this thread still dominating the board?" Comment pops up , admit it's because at more than a 2/1 ratio his detractors scour the earth for any negative they can post about.

                        People who like Lance have a reason to still care. Why should a hater be taken seriously. Why would a non hater, non fan still care about this thread?

                        Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                        Because it's fun to discuss? The same reason I'm flipping between IU/Maryland and Michigan/Penn State in college football right now? I like sports, I like discussing sports, it's something I enjoy. I've tried very hard to not post anything trollish in this thread for awhile. Just trying to discuss Lance with a level head.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          Because it's fun to discuss? The same reason I'm flipping between IU/Maryland and Michigan/Penn State in college football right now? I like sports, I like discussing sports, it's something I enjoy. I've tried very hard to not post anything trollish in this thread for awhile. Just trying to discuss Lance with a level head.
                          You hopped in to defend someone else. I was n't aurguing with your statements.

                          Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                            You hopped in to defend someone else. I was n't aurguing with your statements.

                            Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                            Fair enough, Mr. Stoned Birthday Dog

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Fair enough, Mr. Stoned Birthday Dog
                              I love that dog

                              Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                                I love that dog

                                Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                                It's a hilarious picture--I wasn't trying to be a dick. I always laugh when I see that thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X