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 joew8302 View Post
    Interesting perspective. Like you said, time will tell. I agree with you that we may play with a chip on our shoulder, I just think that ultimately, the lack of talent in key areas will doom us.
    This is very true. And I don't think anybody is looking for this team to win a TON of games. But I look at the Bulls last season once they traded Deng, and I think it shows that it's possible that a team full of vets that are used to winning, can figure out a way to come together and at least be competitive. We will have to scratch and claw for most of our wins but if there's anything that Frank is good at - it's utilizing the "us against the world" mantra and motivating his team to prove doubters wrong. Who knows if that coaching style has a shelf life, but we are about to find out.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I wonder if Lance and Bird have ANY communication now?
      "Hey Lance, is MJ planning on sticking around over there? The loaded down contracts over here are killing me … but you already knew that."
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        "Hey Lance, is MJ planning on sticking around over there? The loaded down contracts over here are killing me … but you already knew that."
        Except we could have offered more, and didn't.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          Except we could have offered more, and didn't.
          We could have drafted Rajon Rondo, but we didn't. Instead, we drafted a guy named Shawne Williams. The Pacers are fallible...

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            We could have drafted Rajon Rondo, but we didn't. Instead, we drafted a guy named Shawne Williams. The Pacers are fallible...
            This is a little different than a draft pick though. This guy had been with the organization for what, 4 years? He was a known quantity. I honestly just don't think the Pacers wanted him back all that much.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              This is a little different than a draft pick though. This guy had been with the organization for what, 4 years? He was a known quantity. I honestly just don't think the Pacers wanted him back all that much.
              I honestly think Bird just doesn't consider Lance that good or that important to our future. Like he said earlier, we can plug someone in and be just fine. I happen to be someone who agrees, he isn't that good and wasn't worth that much. I'm glad Larry didn't overpay for Lance.
              So yes, they wanted him back but just not that much.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                This is a little different than a draft pick though. This guy had been with the organization for what, 4 years? He was a known quantity. I honestly just don't think the Pacers wanted him back all that much.
                They also re-signed Jim O'Brien after knowing all about him...prior to finally firing him mid season only to see Frank take this team to the playoffs. Again, the Pacers are fallible. At least they finally corrected that mistake.

                Also, last season, several moves by the Pacers and Paul George destabilized the Pacers.....all after the team had a great start to the season. They should have learned awhile ago not to mess up a good thing. Paul and his baby mama drama, selfies, etc. The Pacers brain trust discarded the loyal Danny Granger like he was a piece of trash...for Evan freaking Turner who is no longer on the team. Another bright idea. That did not sit well with the players. I recall Hill and West appeared to be pissed when that happened. They also brought in Andrew Bynum which is probably why Roy Hibbert never got out of his mental funk last season. That was a stupid acquisition...and of course he is no longer with the team either.

                All of this stuff destabilized the organization...after guys like Clarke Kellogg were no longer around to tend to Lance and Bird even admitted he was asleep at that wheel. It was a recipe for failure, literally cooked up by Bird on up.

                Instead of giving a young immature player the stability he needed to grow up, they tore down the supports and actually got what they deserved. Simon himself I could tell wasn't that interested in retaining Lance...so I agree with you on that point. But the man should look in the mirror. There's a reason it happened and he only has himself to blame because he should have known it would happen. They drafted Lance Stephenson and knew all along he would require hand holding. Then they pulled the rug out. Well, I guess we will see how that turns out now in Charlotte.
                Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-19-2014, 09:21 PM.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Again, the Pacers are fallible. At least they finally corrected that mistake.
                  Can't disagree with you on this.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Also, last season, several moves by the Pacers and Paul George destabilized the Pacers.....all after the team had a great start to the season. They should have learned awhile ago not to mess up a good thing. Paul and his baby mama drama, selfies, etc. The Pacers brain trust discarded the loyal Danny Granger like he was a piece of trash...for Evan freaking Turner who is no longer on the team. Another bright idea. That did not sit well with the players. I recall Hill and West appeared to be pissed when that happened. They also brought in Andrew Bynum which is probably why Roy Hibbert never got out of his mental funk last season. That was a stupid acquisition...and of course he is no longer with the team either.
                  Everything that you suggest here is a possibility....but until someone can confirm that all of this happened and those are the actual reasons for the breakdown of last season.....these are all assumptions that you're making here. I admit that some of it makes sense and even plausible.....but we have no clue as to what actually happened.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  All of this stuff destabilized the organization...after guys like Clarke Kellogg were no longer around to tend to Lance and Bird even admitted he was asleep at that wheel. It was a recipe for failure, literally cooked up by Bird on up.
                  In terms of what was happening ( whatever the reason ), I totally agree here.....a large part of the blame should be placed on Bird and the FO for letting things go as far as it did. I ( and many here ) really wonder why Bird let so much of this ****** go down the way it did.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Instead of giving a young immature player the stability he needed to grow up, they tore down the supports and actually got what they deserved. Simon himself I could tell wasn't that interested in retaining Lance...so I agree with you on that point. But the man should look in the mirror. There's a reason it happened and he only has himself to blame because he should have known it would happen. They drafted Lance Stephenson and knew all along he would require hand holding. Then they pulled the rug out. Well, I guess we will see how that turns out now in Charlotte.
                  I get that Players need guidance and all.....but Lance has been under Bird's wing for 4 years now....2 of them where he was the legit Starter for the Team. I mean, at what point do you just let your kid walk on his own and see if he can walk or fall down?

                  After 4 years, if Lance isn't in the position at his age and stage in his career to handle the adversity of losing Granger ( assuming that he is the stabilizing force that you suspect that he was ) and whatever instability that results from a wierd-*** Season ( like what happens last year ), I don't blame the Pacers Organization for setting a price ceiling for him and then sticking to it.

                  If he needs all of these "support struts" to continue his development and not do something stupid.....then I do wonder at what point will he mature. I fully understand that this will open up the whole "Players mature differently" discussion....but this is clearly debatable. For all we know, we may see a different and more mature Lance once he shows up in a Hornets uniform. At this point ( and I'm totally guessing here ), I can see Lance continuing to develop....get better and even ( one day ) reach the potential that many of us wish he would fulfill here in Indy. But I suspect that we'd see more of what happened in the 2nd half of the season and Playoffs ( IMHO, something that Bird was very happy about seeing after learning the hard way what happens with what went with Artest years ago ) before he reaches his potential.

                  Keep in mind that the FO, Coaching Staff and Bird himself has a much better gauge of Lance ( the Player and the Person ); so they see and know far more about Lance than we do. I wouldn't be surprised if they took all of that into consideration when deciding how much they wanted to offer Lance. To be clear, that doesn't mean that the Pacers didn't want him....they just ( as Pacerized suggests ) didn't want him at a higher price after seeing how he was in the Playoffs and what happened throughout the season.

                  In the end; I just think that Lance wanted a quicker out to hit Free Agency earlier, something that MJ/Charlotte would give him and not Bird/Pacers. At most, I can see Lance learning the harsh truth that "it's all a business" after seeing what happened to Granger and then turning around and bolting cuz he got what he wanted from MJ and not Bird ( while ignoring what Bird and the Pacers Organization did for him from Day 1 of his NBA career ). Lance made a Business Decision....ultimately and ironically, what the Pacers decided to do by trading Granger.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 09-20-2014, 02:05 AM.
                  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 Bball View Post
                    I wonder if Lance and Bird have ANY communication now?
                    Why should they? Regardless, I imagine it'd be illegal.

                    Comment


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

                      Bird:

                      "It's just disappointing," Bird said. "When I'd go to practices, when he was on, he was by far our best player. And he worked. If you work as hard as he does, you're going to get better. I'm going to miss the kid, no question. And he's growing up. That stuff he pulled in the playoffs, that was out of the blue. But I knew how good Lance was and the value he brought to our team."

                      Y'all going to look back on this and deny your regrets I am sure...

                      Edit: Oh...and this would have been a fantastic time for Lance to take the reigns with Paul on the sidelines. That would have made Lance a better player...just like it did for Paul when Danny went down. As it stands, he is gone and we have CJ Miles to show for it. CJ freaking Miles...
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-20-2014, 08:55 AM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Bird:

                        "It's just disappointing," Bird said. "When I'd go to practices, when he was on, he was by far our best player. And he worked. If you work as hard as he does, you're going to get better. I'm going to miss the kid, no question. And he's growing up. That stuff he pulled in the playoffs, that was out of the blue. But I knew how good Lance was and the value he brought to our team."

                        Y'all going to look back on this and deny your regrets I am sure...

                        Edit: Oh...and this would have been a fantastic time for Lance to take the reigns with Paul on the sidelines. That would have made Lance a better player...just like it did for Paul when Danny went down. As it stands, he is gone and we have CJ Miles to show for it. CJ freaking Miles...

                        I think you emphasized the wrong thing in that bolded quote: when he was on is pretty important.

                        I won't deny or regret anything. I said enough times in enough threads that I was okay with letting Lance walk, even before we actually did it. He's hit or miss, and his volatility tips his risk/reward potential far too much into the "risk" category for me.
                        Last edited by cdash; 09-20-2014, 03:43 PM.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          I think you emphasized the wrong thing in that bolded quote: when he was on is pretty important.

                          I won't deny or regret anything. I said enough times in enough threads that I was okay with letting Lance walk, even before we actually did it. He's hit or miss, and his volatility tips his risk/reward potential far too much into the "risk" category for me.
                          No, I meant to do that. I am not trying to paint it all good. Lance brings behavior issues to the table and while he's more consistent than George Hill and Roy "the roller coaster" Hibbert, he's got to work on that. But the comment about "when he was on" has more to do with his maturity level...and I later highlight that Bird said he's growing up.

                          So, where I am going with this is that we have let go of a player who may turn out, after maturing, to be one of the better players we have seen in a Pacer uniform. I think Bird agrees.

                          Comment


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

                            wish we'd kept him but not upset we aren't involved in this terrible stuff

                            Comment


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

                              I think we lost Lance because Simon was cheap.

                              Comment


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

                                2 year 20 million would have got it done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X