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

Lance is not a pg

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Lance is not a pg

    Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
    I guess I will chime in and pop the cherry on this one.

    I watched the summer league games and what I like about Lance is not only the fact that he has some nice point guard skills but what stood out to me were his intangibles. I just got the feeling that he embraced the challenge of taking over leading the team at the point. It seemed he felt like the point was his best position to play and his job to lose.

    While a lot of the rookies took a while to adjust he seemed to be ready to play as soon as the 1st game started. I also noticed he wasn’t intimidated or timid in his play at any point.

    I believe his attitude and confidence built up from playing against older players and being in the spotlight while growing up will allow him to be able to handle a spot in the rotation from day one.

    I for one hope he is the starter on day one because I see no downside. Best case scenario is he gets better and better and exceeds everyone’s expectation and becomes our point guard of the future. Worst case he struggles and we win 25-30 games and get in better position to draft one of the point guards coming out next year.
    Well said Larry. Lance Stephenson at the PG spot is a win-win situation. We get the big PG that we've already craved and needed and Lance get's the necessary experience at age 20 going against the best PGs in the NBA (and he's probably played against all of the young star PGs when they're were in high school or playing Summer AAU ball). He also proved in the Summer League going against very quick PGs that he's got the handle, is very explosive, and, at 6'5", he's got the size to get to the rim when the opportunity is there. He didn't shoot 73% (22 of 30) chucking 3pters all game although this part of his game will grow very quickly.

    Someone mentioned Evan Turner. He's my take on him. The problem that I see with Evan Turner is that he has only average explosiveness for a guy hyped up by the media as the #2 pick of the entire draft. Normally, a #2 pick has above-average explosiveness (like John Wall does) but Evan does not. He has short arms and only a 34.5" max vertical. He'll have a hard time trying to dominate athletic NBA players who have MORE explosiveness than he does. Some people were shocked when he ONLY shot 33% in Summer League but he ONLY shot 36% at the College 3pt line. As a NBA SG, he'll have to score his points in transition and breaking down his man which will be much harder in the NBA against elite athletes.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Lance is not a pg

      If we stick with our current lineup, then I am okay with giving Lance the majority of the PG minutes. At least until AJ is 100%.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Lance is not a pg

        I'm with anyone who hates it when people say that Summer League play means nothing. They always seem to point to a small number of players that flopped during Summer League play. But you know most of the guys that perform great usually went on to have very good to great NBA seasons.

        Guys like Granger and Hibbert certainly fit the bill. On other teams I can remember players who coincidentally went on to have career years and/or sign nice FA deals like Jason Thompson, Tyreke Evans, Gortat, JJ Redick, Mike Miller, Roger Mason, Raja Bell, Zach Randolph, ect. I think that playing well in the Summer Leagues can really help a player.

        OTOH, many players that struggled badly during Summer League play went on to have disappointing seasons. Brandon Rush immediately comes to mind. Jordan Hill is another. Terrance Williams struggled in the 2009 games as well and went on to have a disappointing rookie season considering the opportunity to play he had.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Lance is not a pg

          Originally posted by bphil View Post
          As I've said before, he can't be any worse than T.J. Ford, who is our only other option right now. I say throw him in the deep end and let him swim.

          Personally I think Lance is either going to be a huge success for the Pacers or a massive failure (if a second round pick can really be considered a failure, which I guess it really can't). Here's an interesting article I found about him from a year ago when he was being recruited out of HS...

          http://www.ballinisahabit.net/2009/0...on-end-up.html


          good article..

          here is an excerpt:

          Lance Stephenson is already - a consensus top 10 recruit that has led Lincoln High School to four straight NYC PSAL titles, is the all-time leading scorer in the state of New York, and is considered by some to be the most talented player to ever come out of Coney Island.








          .
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Lance is not a pg

            Originally posted by owl View Post
            The thread starter brings up an interesting player, George McCloud. I remember the hype.
            I am curious what people remember as to why George was not an effective point.
            My biggest memory was two fold. His handles were weak and thus he had problems bringing the ball up court. I don' remember his court vision being great.

            Lance may also have some problems bringing the ball up against pressure but Lance is
            much stronger than George and has better handles with the ball. He is slowish however.
            On the fast break is where I see Lance at his best.

            Lance, from what i observed, is just the opposite, as to a suggestion that he may not be able to bring the ball up the court well and under pressure.. (at least from all his S.L. games anyways)

            In those games, he not only brought the ball up well, but did so pretty damn fast and efficiently , with nice crossovers and behind the back dribbling..

            He clearly has that attribute , and the ability to handle the ball well.. from seeing it with my own eyes... Now once the competition goes up in regular season, we will truly see how well it translates to stiffer competition and more pressure..

            I think he will do just fine..

            ..
            Last edited by Kemo; 07-15-2010, 05:58 PM.
            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Lance is not a pg

              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
              I'm with anyone who hates it when people say that Summer League play means nothing. They always seem to point to a small number of players that flopped during Summer League play. But you know most of the guys that perform great usually went on to have very good to great NBA seasons.

              Guys like Granger and Hibbert certainly fit the bill. On other teams I can remember players who coincidentally went on to have career years and/or sign nice FA deals like Jason Thompson, Tyreke Evans, Gortat, JJ Redick, Mike Miller, Roger Mason, Raja Bell, Zach Randolph, ect. I think that playing well in the Summer Leagues can really help a player.

              OTOH, many players that struggled badly during Summer League play went on to have disappointing seasons. Brandon Rush immediately comes to mind. Jordan Hill is another. Terrance Williams struggled in the 2009 games as well and went on to have a disappointing rookie season considering the opportunity to play he had.
              Hibbert and Rush missed thier rookie summer league experiences because their trades weren't final. I wouldn't equate thier summer league exepriences - after having played in a large number of actual NBA games for the previous eight months - to a second round draft pick playing in the summer league as a rookie hoping to get an invite to camp and hoping to make the final roster.

              Summer league certainly has value to the players, teams, coaching staff and management -- the trained professionals who understand situation and the inconsistent levels of competition. It exists for a reason. However, fans "forming their own opinion of a player's NBA prospects based on summer league games" is probably not one of the reasons.

              I'm not opposed to the summer league itself. I'm opposed to the non-professionals pretending to be able to make player projections in spite of the inconsistent competition/ benchmark. Its not for us to make evaluations from, it is for the coaches and front office.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Lance is not a pg

                I don't care if he's a point guard or not.

                This is a transition year.

                Screw it. If we think he *might* eventually be a PG, then throw him in at PG.

                What can it hurt?
                You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                - Jimmy Buffett

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Lance is not a pg

                  Originally posted by Doug View Post
                  I don't care if he's a point guard or not.

                  This is a transition year.

                  Screw it. If we think he *might* eventually be a PG, then throw him in at PG.

                  What can it hurt?

                  I agree.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Lance is not a pg

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ
                    I'm not opposed to the summer league itself. I'm opposed to the non-professionals pretending to be able to make player projections in spite of the inconsistent competition/ benchmark. Its not for us to make evaluations from, it is for the coaches and front office.
                    Bing!

                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Lance is not a pg

                      Originally posted by Really? View Post
                      The guy is a basketball player... put the ball in his hands and he will make plays for you, yes he will try to force things, and yes he will have turnovers, but he will also make the people around him better and bring energy to the team.

                      Too many people get caught up with this typical pg stereotype and want to force the issue of us having one. We just need to take what we get for now and if it doesn't work out well nothing new we will try again. It is not like we are one PG away from winning a title, and at best right now with FA and through trades we could only get a unproven guy with potential* or a low level starter or back up, and I personally would hate to give up decent assets for pg's with potential when we don't even know how good they will be when I feel that right now most aren't much better than our current options.

                      Finally we are so quick to put people in set positions, the real question should be can the kid play with the ball in his hands... If he can than lets give him a go and support him along the way.
                      In order to be a good team, you need to have a solid point guard. An actual point guard. And by point guard, I mean, player with that mentality. And that's the biggest key. I don't care if you can throw perfect passes, if you don't have a high BBALL IQ, it's not going to work.

                      A point guard's most important role is being a court general. Knowing the offense. Instructing players where to go. The next most important job, is making proper decisions..whether it be where to go with the ball, where to pass the ball, where to, correctly telling players where they should go.

                      Yes, the skills are very important. Passing, shooting, ball handling, ability to run the pick and roll. That's all extremely important. But quite frankly, a lot of "2 guards" can dod that. But if a player can not do those top two things well, they aren't a point guard.

                      A lot of people point to the Lakers and say Fisher wasn't a point guard. That's incorrect. Fisher is a very good point guard. Fisher knows the triangle offense inside and out. He instructs players on where to go. He makes good decisions. He's not a fantastic player. He's getting old. But he's certainly a point guard.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Lance is not a pg

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

                        I'm not opposed to the summer league itself. I'm opposed to the non-professionals pretending to be able to make player projections in spite of the inconsistent competition/ benchmark. Its not for us to make evaluations from, it is for the coaches and front office.
                        Oh, come on. Live a little.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Lance is not a pg

                          He might not be a traditional PG, but he sure is a baller.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Lance is not a pg

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            Oh, come on. Live a little.
                            I have. And I've learned from experience.

                            I enjoy the process of scouting players, but I know I'm not good enough at it to take myself seriously. And I figured out a long time ago that I can't tell which players that dominate inferior competition will be able to compete against better competition.

                            Damon Bailey is still the most dominating player I've ever seen. But he had to transition from power foward in HS to PG in college and while his college career was very impressive (in spite of giving transfusions to his sister without even redshirting a season), no one would say he dominated. Of course, that was a team effort, so nobody would say Calbert or Greg Graham dominated, either.

                            And by the way, I also watched Damon absolutely dominate the second quarter of an NBA preseason game, where Damon was the fastest player on the court, and Damon completely outplayed both Travis Best and Fred Hoiberg (which Brownie even admitted in the post-game), and then he got cut. Although that might have had more to do with the fact that Travis and Fred had guaranteed contracts and Damon didn't so it probably didn't matter how well he played.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Lance is not a pg

                              Originally posted by Doug View Post
                              I don't care if he's a point guard or not.

                              This is a transition year.

                              Screw it. If we think he *might* eventually be a PG, then throw him in at PG.

                              What can it hurt?
                              You can be giving away a productive wing to get a subpar PG, wasting some precious development time. I also think it's worth the risk though. I agree with this:

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              But he did enough during summer league to warrant further interest.
                              He's a scorer first but showed enough court-vision/poise/playmaking to offer a glimpse of hope. If the experience is successful, he'll need to be paired on court with a guard that can defend PGs, a Brian Shaw type of player. Maybe Brandon Rush can do the job? I'd be interested in seeing a Rush-Stephenson-George-Granger-Hibbert line-up.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Lance is not a pg

                                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                                I'd be interested in seeing a Rush-Stephenson-George-Granger-Hibbert line-up.
                                I'm sure you will. Quite a bit IMO...
                                (I love reading your insights - I've immediately clicked on every post you have made, as i likely always will - you & count!)
                                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X