Tweet
I do not understand the reactions to my comment.
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.
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
-
-
Message boards are by their nature full of contrarians.Originally posted by Eleazar View Post"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference
Comment
-
I guess I should be clear - I don't necessarily agree that Indiana fans only love flash (though we have got to remember the fanbase has changed a lot under the pressure of NBA marketing and one-and-done college stars) but I believe they love Lance the way they do because of his flash. If he was a non-flashy assist machine he'd be at the level of a Foster, I think (though longevity has something to do with that so he'd have to have stuck around), but it's the flash and swagger even at the expense of some consistency that raises him into the top echelon of fan favorites.Originally posted by BlueNGold View PostBillS
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
-
There have been plenty of flashy players that fans didn't embrace like Lance though. It's true that everyone loves to see a flashy play, but I don't think that's even close to the biggest reason Lance is so loved. Indiana fans love an underdog that won't back down. That is Lance's mentality on the court. Players who demonstrate that type of mentality are always embraced on a different level in Indiana, even over players with more skill. This is a huge reason why Reggie is so loved as well. The difference for Reggie is that he also happened to be the best player on the team for the majority of his career. If your talking about just young fans then I can see your point, but the reality is the majority of fans buying tickets are 30 and older. Lacking this mentality is also why PG was never embraced in Indiana the way his talent would suggest he should have been. He was appreciated and accepted as our most talented player but never loved the way guys like Lance, Reggie, or Dale Davis were.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Lance is loved and adored because he is the greatest entertainer in Pacers basketball history and one of the greatest in NBA history. Reggie, Magic, Bird, and few others come to mind. By entertaining, I include flashy plays and antics (Reggie and Spike, etc.). But I also mean the big play when it really matters and really understanding the drama of the game.
Who in the history of Pacers basketball, or any team really, could come in and bring the house down in one or two minutes with three or four crazy things in a row? Lance is Lance, and he is loved."Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference
Comment
-
I think the love for Lance has more to do with timing than anything. He brought some excitement to the team after the JOB years along with coinciding with when the team was being successful. I don't think he would be as popular if he was drafted into an established team who wasn't just recovering from the worst period the franchise had seen in 2 decades.Comment
-
Your first post is a doosy. Nailed it.Originally posted by nss431 View Post
It's true that I like Lance because he will pull on Superman's cape. It doesn't matter how tall the mountain, he will try to climb it. He has underdog going for him too. But there's more. There's a story behind it.
Lance Stephenson entered the NBA with a dark shadow over him. He had allegedly (maybe this is proven) physically abused his girlfriend. I personally questioned his game in his first summer league and was an early detractor. I HATED the fact that Pacers would acquire a guy with questionable character shortly after the brawl. HOW COULD THEY DO THAT? But with a little deeper look and with forgiveness on my mind, I watched and waited..it became clear to me there was more to this guy. I wasn't convinced, but I gave him a chance.
He struggled early and was nearly out of the league. But he stayed the course, kept his nose clean and slowly won over people.
Over time, he proved to be a good soldier and even when people claimed he was a bad egg, which was a lot of noise, he continued to do the right thing. Players and coaches all over the place said he was misunderstood and that he's a good guy. In any event, he wasn't hardly the problem that most of the league thought he would be entering the NBA.
Over time, he won Pacer fan's hearts. He won it as you say by not backing down. Nobody in Indiana appreciates a coward and Lance isn't a coward. He will face whatever player in the NBA and if anything lift his game, all while entertaining fans, keeping things cool and just being a good guy.
How in the world can someone not like this story? It's a story of recovery...of forgiveness...and one of love.
Comment
-
I wasn't being contrarian, or insulting, however I am critical of the way our Pacers fans (note, for some reason on the Colts side the fans are way more supportive currently) are today to some extent.
Pacers fans used to be incredibly supportive of players. We loved Haywood Workman. Derrick McKey. Foster. Davis. Davis. Jalen. Mark Jackson. Travis Best (even if we complained about his dribbling), Smits, O'neal etc.
Part of this is probably our current political climate, and the conservative nature of our state, but after the brawl, the way Pacers fans are able to tear down players is incredible. And yes, I believe flash is far more appreciated and desired than it once was.
I should note, that there is nothing wrong with that. As an example, preferring basketball players like Pistol Pete over Kevin McHale is actually fairly normal, and we should stop framing this little discussion as if appreciating "substance over style" is somehow morally superior. It's not. What you like to watch, and enjoy is just that, what you like. It's basketball. It's a sport. It's entertainment, nothing more.
That said, I will roll my eyes if anyone says we appreciate the "put your head down and play" style of basketball. That's absurd. Paul George, who's from a small town, was NEVER a top tier prospect as was erroneously said prior, was the definition of put your head down and play. He's low key. He literally will play in the smallest city in the NBA, because he wants to compete, he's anti super team, which many of his critiques claim to appreciate.
But if our fan base really appreciates that, then why is literally every word PG has ever said picked a part, taken at face value instead of attempting to understand his actual point of view. (not saying there is anything wrong with legitimate disappointment he left).
This is a common way Pacers fans view many players. Already Jimmy Butler is being ripped up one side and down the other as if he's a selfish, me- first player. Except interesting fact that just came out: KAT said he didn't want to play with Butler! Yet here we are ripping Butler in every way possible, when he's the definition of hard work and effort, a second rounder who built a career from nothing.
Yes. I'm critical of Pacers fans. If what I'm saying is NOT true? Then stop finding away to hate on NBA players, and our own players — there's a far difference from being critical of a players weaknesses, and literally tearing them down and bringing wild accusations about a players IQ (inherently a racist accusation, whether you want to be in denial or honest with yourself), or such baseless claims that a player is "soft", "me firsT" "selfish" or the many accusations that Pacers fans lob at players at every opportunity.
But again, if we supposedly appreciate "substance" then PLEASE ask yourself why our fan base literally ripped the most low key, "Hoosier" basketball player of all time. A local. Indy born and raised. IUPUI, a small D1 college. Not a big time recruit. Late 1st round pick. Built himself into Mr Fundimental. Wears tattoos of Indiana all over him. Refers to himself as Indiana. One time, he criticized his own hometown, as I and everyone else who's ever lived here has done before as well, because they tried to EXPLOIT his fame for money. Naturally he was upset. Some fans used that as an excuse to literally hate him. That's ridiculous!
Yet he was absolutely brutally criticized. I'm fairly confident if he made more 1 handed passes, had a better crossover, and went for a higher assist count, fans would have appreciated him. But we appreciate "substance?" No we don't.
If you want to be THAT type of fan base? Then, in the kindest words possible, stop "hating." Stop saying Paul George was selfish. He wasn't. He just wanted to win. Stop saying he didn't "try" that's untrue and we know it. Stop saying Roy Hibbert sucked. He was really good, for a moment, even tho the league passed him by. Stop finding a reason to tear down a players character:
"Sabonis can't go right and doesn't have a post game, but has a brilliant PnR game, and is fluid, smart player maker". That's accurate. "Sabonis is soft and lazy" isn't accurate and all, and as a result is really an unfair accusation that denigrates who he is as a player and a person.
"Lance is flashy and throws the ball in the stands, and can't shoot, but he's fun, energetic, and a riot to watch" is accurate.
I dunno, I guess I find it hard to believe that our fan base appreciates the hard workers, when we can turn around and rip player after player after player. (Butler, George, Hibbert, Hill, Turner, the list goes on...)
I can tell you that every single player that donned a uniform of the last 20 years I've appreciated except Troy Murphy and Monta Ellis. That's it. I even like Monta Ellis actually prior to the signing!! I used to love watching him play, I was more upset at Bird for bringing him in, when he was FAR from being even "average". It was one of the worst free agent signings in NBA history.Last edited by mattie; 09-22-2018, 09:37 PM.Comment
-
An example of the way we tear down players. I've seen the following criticisms, paraphrased:
Jimmy Butler sucks because he wants to be the "man". (Note, zero evidence that he wants that, the opposite actually).
Paul George sucks because he wants to play with someone else so he does NOT have to be the man. (again, zero evidence of that. He just wanted to play where he had a chance to win, without building a "super team).
Paul George is selfish.
Paul George just wants to play in a big market. (he left a small market for the NBA's smallest market).
Paul George is weak and can't handle pressure. (He turned down playing with LBJ, where he would be effectively nothing more than a role player, to take on the pressure of competing for a ring with Westbrook)
Roy Hibbert was soft. (he was uncoordinated, but certainly was fearless, as he showed when he man handled Chris Bosh in the playoffs 6 years ago)
Myles Turner is lazy. (again, zero evidence of this).
Myles Turner is "soft." (again. No evidence of this. Myles doesn't now how to play physical without fouling. But he absolutely has shown physicality, only many times it is to the detriment. Love him or hate him, soft just isn't accurate.)
I'm not going to name all of them, that's a snippet, but here's what I'd like to highlight: None of those criticisms are actually talking about basketball. They're arbitrary proclomations about a players mindset, and you could argue, are a criticisms of each players actual character. An attack on who they are as people.
You didn't say: Butler never turned into an effective volume three point shooter who can play off the ball
You didn't say, PG never developed a go to move that can effectively get him buckets and trips to the foul line.
You didn't say, Roy Hibbert lacks the coordination and athleticism to play in the modern NBA.
Myles Turner isn't a very good rebounder, and hasn't progressed as quickly as we would like.
Those are all actual descriptions of the players basketball play. Not "he's weak, soft, low IQ" etc.
Finally my last point: NONE Of those plalyers are top tier prospects, athletes, who have shown ANY evidence that they care about fame, limelight, and money. The reality is ALL Of them have literally demonstrated the sort of qualities that our fan base supposedly LOVES.
So which is it?
Comment
-
Remember when Antonio Davis wanted to start and asked for a trade? No one hated him. Our fan base understood.
What changed?
Comment
-
What changed? Not much. JO was viciously criticized. It boils down to what a player does. Reggie wasn't criticized because he delivered (as opposed to talking big and never backing it up like JO), wasn't a problem in the locker room, wasn't soft and was loyal. It's really that simple.Originally posted by mattie View Post
It's well documented why Roy Hibbert was criticized and the people kicking him the hardest out the door were Pacer insiders. He deserved criticism because he earned it.
Paul George? He wasn't criticized much until he essentially became the enemy. I liked him and believe he was pretty popular, delivered in the playoffs and people acknowledged he was the most talented NBA Pacer. Once he started mailing it in and demanding a trade, he became the enemy. Sorry, I'm not an OKC fan and when a player says he wants to play for the Lakers he can just get out of town.
Myles Turner may not deserve the criticism yet. But so far he's shown himself to be soft. He is soft because he cannot post up a midget like Jose Calderone, he's got biceps the size of my wrist and there's that time Klay Thompson just wiped him out of the way going to the rim. If Myles Turner isn't soft it's only because you are comparing him to Troy Murphy. He also lacks game. He has lots of physical attributes including length. He blocks shots like you would expect a 7 foot tall volleyball player. He can shoot the rock. I will give him that. But the rest of his game? He just doesn't have that many skills and I feel he's over-rated. I certainly do not think he should be on Team USA. That's not to say I think he's a bad player because he's an average NBA starter.
I'm not manufacturing this. It's just a fact. I recall your videos a couple months ago and essentially Myles avoids contact by fading away. He does that in part because he's soft. If he wasn't soft he'd be putting pressure on the rim and he just doesn't do that.
Edit. And this gets to George Hill. I was extremely happy when George became the point guard and we no longer had a poor defender (Collison) at the point. But he was criticized because half the time he wasn't playing aggressive. Maybe he didnt' have the energy. But he was disliked by fans because he didn't want to come here. That's a fact. The fans didn't start it with George Hill. He did. First impressions are critical and he made a horrible first impression to the point he wasn't going to recover with a large number of fans. I cam around to like him until he started whining about his "real estate" being taken by Lance. Fact is, the last time Hill was used as a SG we contended. He should have been happy handing the reigns over the Lance but he wasn't. That was another strike because the fans like Lance.Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-22-2018, 11:35 PM.Comment
-
Which is why I am completely confused by your statement. At no point did I say anything that should be contrived as tearing down a player. I in no way even came close to suggesting anything like that.Originally posted by mattie View Post
P.S. I thought George Hill was generally well liked by most Pacer fans. Most people just thought he was more capable than he played because he wasn't assertive enough.Last edited by Eleazar; 09-22-2018, 11:43 PM.Comment
-
I can't speak for mattie but I think his response was primarily to your last line "(nationally people tend to value flash while Hoosiers tend to value BBIQ)". The fact this forum has been a torrent of tears and gnashing teeth because we didn't sign guys like Cousins, Jabari Parker or Aaron freaking Gordon kind of runs counter to that point. Especially when the signings of high BBIQ, really good basketball players like McBuckets and Evans get treated like garbage.Originally posted by Eleazar View PostComment
-
I don't put a lot of value in initial reactions. Of course people are going to be upset that we signed players who they are less familiar with. That is just human nature. I am more worried about how people act over the long term. Over the long term Hoosiers tend to appreciate the smarter players, and sour on the low-BBIQ players.Originally posted by Wage View Post
I also do not believe this board, or any message board, represents the average Hoosier. The people here are the hard core of the hard core, the kind of people who live and die by this team. Emotions are higher around here, and every detail gets scrutinized. If i want to know what the average Hoosier thinks I go to my dad, uncle, and other people who do not visit message boards.
P.S. In life, there are always exceptions.Comment
-
Wage nailed it— I wasn't necessarily putting you into that group btw. I don't think you tear down players at all.Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
I saw the "hoosiers appreciate bbiq" and went on a rant on the Pacers fan base as a whole.
Also, I do agree that George Hill was generally liked. I'd say the majority of fans liked him. But there are two things I find extremely odd, is that there WAS a portion of the fan base that flat out did not like him, and secondly based on who he is, he should be the most beloved Pacers ever outside of Reggie.
I mean, an Indiana guy, late 1st rounder, wears his love for Indiana on his sleeve, plays bothsides of the court, is the definition of fundamental, I mean he plays basketball like Coach Gene Hackman is in his ear every moment he's on the court. So the fact that he wasn't absolutely beloved as an alltimer, much less people actually didn't like him just blows my mind.Comment
Comment