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

Tyreke out tonight for personal reasons

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Seems to me that given Lance's experience with other teams the genius is Nate for being able to get so much out of him and keep him contributing consistently.
    I think McMillan is a good coach for Stephenson. McMillan is a no tolerance kind of coach so it keeps Stephenson grounded.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post

      Thats an opinion, not a fact , but the narrative wasnt "Lance would have pushed the Pacers farther in the playoffs if he was here"

      Its that for all the Tyreke talk, and I was on board at the time, the reality is we would have been better off keeping Lance on a 1 year rental at bare minimum cost, than to give Tyreke 12M for what he has brought so far, not to mention his lack of interest , just my thoughts
      It's not a fact that the Pacers we're unable to win a single game with Lance as the starting SG last year?

      It's not a fact that we lost by an average of 14 points with him as the starter last year?

      The reason for pointing out those facts is because this is basically the same team as last year. If we want to play the hypothetical game, maybe Lance becomes superman if he decides to sign with us instead of the Lakers and becomes an MVP candidate. Maybe I will win the lottery this weekend and finally become a multi millionaire. Unfortunately for both me and Lance, reality and relavent data suggests neither has or had a chance of happening.

      Lance Stephenson is a player who can contribute well in a bench role or as a 4th or 5th option as a starter (the latter being something I don't think he can accept or do at this point). He has always had games where he makes great plays that energize a team and also games where he plays like complete crap and throws away possessions like it's built into his contract. You can love the guy all you want, but there is a reason the Pacers are the only team that has kept him for more than one season consecutively. Go read the Lakers subreddit for post game threads and it will tell you all you need to know about their fans' perception of Lance this year. I'll give you a hint, the majority of the time it's not positive.
      Last edited by BenR1990; 03-15-2019, 01:56 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        NO, NO, NO...Lance to Lakers were purely KP's fault. He expected Lance to just sit there and wait as if no one wanted him and then want to sign him weeks later when Lebron asks for Lance. NOPE YOUR FAULT KP!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by 31Since1990 View Post
          NO, NO, NO...Lance to Lakers were purely KP's fault. He expected Lance to just sit there and wait as if no one wanted him and then want to sign him weeks later when Lebron asks for Lance. NOPE YOUR FAULT KP!
          Well, it's the flow that the finances for it had to follow - but apparently, both you and Lance don't get it.

          Regardless - glad he's in LA. He gave some fun moments, but the bad outweighed the good. Wish him luck on his next team too. Hope he likes sushi . . . . .

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

            Well, it's the flow that the finances for it had to follow - but apparently, both you and Lance don't get it.

            Regardless - glad he's in LA. He gave some fun moments, but the bad outweighed the good. Wish him luck on his next team too. Hope he likes sushi . . . . .
            Not being a sushi eater, I thought sushi was Japanese.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post

              Not being a sushi eater, I thought sushi was Japanese.
              Eh - close enough.

              I don't eat the stuff either.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                -snip-
                The reason for pointing out those facts is because this is basically the same team as last year.
                -snip-
                Gotta call this out. Myles Turner is not the same player. Domas has dramatically improved as well. Bojan is playing at a much higher level. Thad Young doesn't get much press, but his stats are way, way up. Just about all the starters have taken a huge leap up.

                What we have is two vets who are peaking...and two young bigs who had a huge growth spurt. We don't have Dipo but a big part of the season we did.

                As for Tyreke, getting back to the thread. Wind back the clock now to last summer. Would you make that deal? Who would rather have "Tyreke the malcontent" for nearly 3 times as much money as Lance who is a great team mate and fan favorite? We could have used that extra 6-7M to lure better talent. There was a lie going around that JJ Redick wouldn't sign but that's not true. We could have thrown more money and we'd have him right now. That dude is very under-rated. He would immediately become our best offensive player.
                Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                Comment


                • #83
                  We don't know what goes on behind the scenes. If a player is a great teammate, a fan favorite and a good basketball player that would fit in with the rest of what the Pacers are doing, there's no doubt in my mind that Pritch would have him on the roster this season.

                  I don't know exactly why Lance wasn't at the top of the TO-DO list - and neither do you (speaking in a general term) - but he apparently wasn't.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                    We don't know what goes on behind the scenes. If a player is a great teammate, a fan favorite and a good basketball player that would fit in with the rest of what the Pacers are doing, there's no doubt in my mind that Pritch would have him on the roster this season.

                    I don't know exactly why Lance wasn't at the top of the TO-DO list - and neither do you (speaking in a general term) - but he apparently wasn't.
                    The Pacers and KP made an assumption that Lance, because he loved Indiana, would wait around for them. They were wrong. They miscalculated.

                    They put him on edge by declining his option and given the past few years he had good reason to be concerned. And before they had time to secure him, LeBron James swooped in and scooped him up. That's exactly what happened.

                    They initially said no regrets on both sides because they got Tyreke. You saw that tweet, right. Well, they should have regrets now that Tyreke is acting like an @zz. The Pacers though are very fortunate to have picked up Wes Matthews. He's turning out to be what we hoped Tyreke would be for the team. And Tyreke knows it and cannot handle it.
                    Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Not that I miss his so-called contribution to this forum but did Vnzla get banned?


                      Name-calling signature removed

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Here's the tweet since it did not embed:

                        Mark Monteith: @PacersKev clarified that he offered @StephensonLance a better deal than Lakers, but phone call from @KingJames sealed it. No hard feelings on either side. Especially now that @TyrekeEvans has signed.
                        Now, nothing in that quote implies anything other than the timing in the quote itself - offer from Lakers on table, offer from Pacers on table, phone call from LBJ, Lance goes to play with LBJ. There's nothing wrong with that, Lance would be a fool not to take the chance to play with LBJ. As Monteith reported, no hard feelings.

                        It is only your Lance-colored glasses that make you want to add culpability to the Pacers (that they disrespected Lance by not picking up his option without ever talking to him about it) and a hands tied by integrity situation to Lance (he already promised LBJ before the Pacers offer came in - even though that implies he would make a verbal commitment before all deals had come in to his agent, which would be poor decision-making on his part). You kind of have to take every chance to paint Lance as an aggrieved party who has been done wrong and KP as an *******.
                        BillS

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

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Here's the tweet since it did not embed:



                          Now, nothing in that quote implies anything other than the timing in the quote itself - offer from Lakers on table, offer from Pacers on table, phone call from LBJ, Lance goes to play with LBJ. There's nothing wrong with that, Lance would be a fool not to take the chance to play with LBJ. As Monteith reported, no hard feelings.

                          It is only your Lance-colored glasses that make you want to add culpability to the Pacers (that they disrespected Lance by not picking up his option without ever talking to him about it) and a hands tied by integrity situation to Lance (he already promised LBJ before the Pacers offer came in - even though that implies he would make a verbal commitment before all deals had come in to his agent, which would be poor decision-making on his part). You kind of have to take every chance to paint Lance as an aggrieved party who has been done wrong and KP as an *******.
                          But KP *could* have said he "offered @StephensonLance a better deal than the Lakers BEFORE the phone call from @KingJames". That would make it clear that Lance chose the Lakers over the Pacers at the time the offers were available. But that's not what is being said and it's supposed to be a clarification emphasizing the Pacers interest in retaining Lance. So, read in that light it appears the better offer from the Pacers was presented AFTER the phone call.

                          All tha call says is that A) LeBron's call sealed the deal and B) the Pacers (at some point) provided a better offer than the Lakers. If anything, the context indicates that A happened before B.

                          If true, and I believe it is...that shows that KP was late to the party, that he miscalculated and by declining the option and leaving Lance out in the cold he didn't show due respect to a fan favorite.

                          Don't forget that Pacer management have mistreated players in the past. Larry Bird said he wasn't going to trade Danny Granger, a franchise player, and then just weeks later Danny was sent to Philly (at the time a garbage team). Lance was there when that happened and just because KP says he's going to work things out, doesn't mean much. Money talks, BS walks...and when the King calls and you make an agreement...and you have morals...you don't renege.
                          Vnzla81: Yep pretty much, they cut him because they were going to get "their guy" they couldn't get option 1,2,3,4,5 then they went to Lance he said "no thanks" and they had no other choice but to get Lance 2.0 for three times the cost.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I doubt that Lance and his genius agent were unaware of the Pacers plans. Well - given what happened the first time around - maybe they were. I'd feel pretty safe in saying that Pritch was in contact with either Lance or his agent and laid out his thoughts, ideas and plans. Then, LeBron calls and Lance goes. Even Lance said that when LeBron calls, you go. Nobody was in the dark about anything. Lance just jumped at the chance to play with LeBron. And again - just like the first time around - how did that work out for him ??

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post


                              Pacers are tied for second in the NBA in games won after trailing by at least 10 points.
                              Right. Only second. First with Lance around.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Banta View Post
                                Not that I miss his so-called contribution to this forum but did Vnzla get banned?
                                I was wondering the same. Have been out of the loop for a while, but assume he must have because I haven't seen him anywhere as I've been trying to catch up on a lot of the posts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X