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

What happened to Lance?

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

  • #76
    Re: What happened to Lance?

    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
    See. Just like this. People defend this kid when he's caused more headaches than heart-filled moments. We've got another 20 year old kid in Paul George who knows how to play the game the right way both on and off the court, so can we cut it out with the excuses.
    Can we cut out the condemnation of a kid who apparently has done something that no one knows exactly what it is but it's bad. And then you bring up an irrelevant situation with PG.
    We are not making excuses but tell us what exactly his terrible crime was but you don't know. Lance is not something disposable. if you want to get rid of him fine but don't use some event you know nothing about. if you want to get rid of him for his off court activities ok.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: What happened to Lance?

      Originally posted by Merz View Post
      Well, until it gets 100% proven without a shadow of a doubt as illegal and him being involved (even if several parties claim he is/was), that's pretty much how you have to word it.

      I know there is plenty of evidence and some even think his father's death was involved, but it hasn't been proven and I wasn't there to see it. I'm not saying he didn't do any ILLEGAL gambling (I did bring it up for him being a knucklehead after all), I'm just saying he allegedly did.
      You never said anything about illegal gambling before either, which is why I commented. It is 100% proven that Jordan has what a normal human being would consider a gambling problem.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: What happened to Lance?

        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
        That's a reason why you don't look purely at stats, John Hollinger. Watch the actual games, and any Pacer fan will tell you that Tinsley for the most part got progressively worse (outside of his rare post-brawl rejuvenation).
        I did watch the games, thanks, and I don't agree with your assessment. What I would say is that the way Tinsley was utilized changed after his rookie year. If you want to blame that on him and say his game declined, go ahead, but I don't think it's the truth. When you say the league figured out he couldn't shoot, but then his shooting percentage increases, that just doesn't make much sense to me.

        It offends me that you imply I am not a Pacer fan by the way.
        Last edited by mb221; 03-12-2011, 11:04 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: What happened to Lance?

          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
          Can we cut out the condemnation of a kid who apparently has done something that no one knows exactly what it is but it's bad. And then you bring up an irrelevant situation with PG.
          We are not making excuses but tell us what exactly his terrible crime was but you don't know. Lance is not something disposable. if you want to get rid of him fine but don't use some event you know nothing about. if you want to get rid of him for his off court activities ok.
          You used age as a crutch for him. There are plenty of 20 year olds who are much more mature than Lance, that's no excuse. He should've been humbled enough by being drafted in the second round.

          There is no terrible crime. I'm honestly neutral. I will neither attack nor defend him, but I would rather see him do something on the court before I become his Clark Kent or biggest critic. However, I cringe internally when I read stuff like this:

          Honestly, this team can use someone like Lance to make them realize what they're doing.

          As the veterans, Dahntay and Danny should actually be embarrassed.

          Lance seems like a good rookie so far and looks like his ceiling is very high to be something special.

          He needs to keep his head straight in his career and move on from his past.
          Really? This team can learn from a guy who has made less positive impact on the franchise than Solomon Jones? A guy who has had more red flags than green and has made the papers for all the wrong reasons?

          My point is, let's actually see what this guy can do on the court and what he brings. I agree, we don't know all the facts on some of these off the court incidents, but we know even less what he can do on the court. I feel like some people have just got caught up in his hype though and act like he's some legend, when he hasn't done much of anything for us.
          Last edited by PR07; 03-12-2011, 11:15 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: What happened to Lance?

            Originally posted by mb221 View Post
            You never said anything about illegal gambling before either, which is why I commented. It is 100% proven that Jordan has what a normal human being would consider a gambling problem.
            Yes I did. If you don't want to go back and check yourself...here you go...

            Originally posted by Merz View Post
            Jordan would be a knucklehead to some of these people, after all he allegedly (that's enough around here) was big into illegal gambling.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: What happened to Lance?

              Originally posted by Merz View Post
              Yes I did. If you don't want to go back and check yourself...here you go...
              My bad. I even quoted it in my response.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: What happened to Lance?

                I need to catch up with this thread (still on page 2), so maybe this already got addressed, but I am just astounded with something here.

                We're talking about Lance Stephenson. A guy who already has a history of red flags, a guy who was just very recently described as a 20 year old who acts like a 15 year old, the word also being that he thinks he knows it all already and isn't a good listener.

                Think about that for more than a second.

                Now, this is the same person that, some of you, honest to God, are going to presume stood up in the locker room, acting like a leader, and called out the legitimate BS of the veteran players?

                Are you FREAKING KIDDING me? Do you realize just how out of character that would be? How very, very unlikely that would be?

                I can only suspect that you guys are so desperate for more talent on this team, so desperate for a leader on this team, basically so desperate for a savior for this team, that, at this point, you're really, REALLY stretching it to make such a claim.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: What happened to Lance?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  I need to catch up with this thread (still on page 2), so maybe this already got addressed, but I am just astounded with something here.

                  We're talking about Lance Stephenson. A guy who already has a history of red flags, a guy who was just very recently described as a 20 year old who acts like a 15 year old, the word also being that he thinks he knows it all already and isn't a good listener.

                  Think about that for more than a second.

                  Now, this is the same person that, some of you, honest to God, are going to presume stood up in the locker room, acting like a leader, and called out the legitimate BS of the veteran players?

                  Are you FREAKING KIDDING me? Do you realize just how out of character that would be? How very, very unlikely that would be?

                  I can only suspect that you guys are so desperate for more talent on this team, so desperate for a leader on this, basically desperate for a savior for this team at this point, that you're really, REALLY stretching it to make such a claim.
                  No one said he was right; we just don't know that he was wrong. What is wrong is the condemnation he is receiving for this incident and no one knows jack about what happened.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: What happened to Lance?

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    Some of this may be controversial

                    Roy, DC, Dun, Ford-definitely milk drinkers

                    Tyler, lance, DJ, DG, AJ, Rush-knuckleheads

                    Mcroberts, Foster, Posey-more knucklehead than milk drinker

                    Solo, PG-more milk drinker than knucklehead
                    We must have different definitions for knucklehead.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: What happened to Lance?

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      We must have different definitions for knucklehead.
                      You are missing the total absurdity of this post. Have a drink and you'll get it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: What happened to Lance?

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        No one said he was right; we just don't know that he was wrong. What is wrong is the condemnation he is receiving for this incident and no one knows jack about what happened.
                        Personally, that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm basing this more on what Wells was saying the other day. I also think it's telling that Lance has dropped back out of the rotation, when he obviously is talented enough to be a contributor right now. He didn't get benched for his play. No way.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: What happened to Lance?

                          As for this other discussion about what fans will or won't support in Indy, Peck has championed this point for years: That team was NOT very much liked at all in Indy. Yes, fans still supported them because they were winning, to a point, but it was not at all the same as how people felt about the Pacers from 94-2000+.

                          But regardless, how'd that team of talent work out for you? Oh, that's right, they had an epic meltdown and flamed out with only one good season to show for it. Give me more of that, please. It was and remains fool's gold, folks. It can work for a while, but the odds of it sustaining itself long enough to win a title are poor.

                          Yes, the past several years have sucked. Yes, I miss the winning. But getting back to a roster like the one we had in 2004 or 2005 is not really the answer. It's false hope.

                          That doesn't mean you need a team with 15 choir boys on it, but it damned well better be more mature than that sorry bunch was.

                          Unless Lance shows a tremendous amount of growth in the near future, he is not the answer. Move on and find someone better. You have to have talent and a certain degree of maturity. Both.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: What happened to Lance?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Personally, that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm basing this more on what Wells was saying the other day. I also think it's telling that Lance has dropped back out of the rotation, when he obviously is talented enough to be a contributor right now. He didn't get benched for his play. No way.
                            We need to know facts and not inferences from journalists whose job it is to create interest and tension. Until I know exactly what he did I can't assume anything. Perhaps he is just the new whipping boy for all the failures of the team. Perhaps he crossed some line that he shouldn't have because he doesn't know better. And perhaps Vogel has to side with the vets because he is afraid he 'll lose the team.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: What happened to Lance?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I need to catch up with this thread (still on page 2), so maybe this already got addressed, but I am just astounded with something here.

                              We're talking about Lance Stephenson. A guy who already has a history of red flags, a guy who was just very recently described as a 20 year old who acts like a 15 year old, the word also being that he thinks he knows it all already and isn't a good listener.

                              Think about that for more than a second.

                              Now, this is the same person that, some of you, honest to God, are going to presume stood up in the locker room, acting like a leader, and called out the legitimate BS of the veteran players?

                              Are you FREAKING KIDDING me? Do you realize just how out of character that would be? How very, very unlikely that would be?

                              I can only suspect that you guys are so desperate for more talent on this team, so desperate for a leader on this team, basically so desperate for a savior for this team, that, at this point, you're really, REALLY stretching it to make such a claim.
                              Clearly this is our Bizzaro Pacers season the Pacers were in playoff position and have played their way out of it late unlike previous years when the played their way out of an early lottery pick late in the season. Granger is Bizzaro Granger (if you check out his post game comments against Toronto).

                              Why can't there be a Bizzaro Lance?



                              BIZZARO!!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: What happened to Lance?

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                We need to know facts and not inferences from journalists whose job it is to create interest and tension.
                                You do realize he went on about this in a radio interview, and not a column, right? If we're going to throw out the 'he just wants attention' card, it would make a lot more sense if this had come in a featured column. But it didn't. It wasn't even his blog. It was a radio interview.

                                But the bigger point is this: This isn't just some out-of-nowhere comment by Mike Wells.

                                There's the red flag of the alleged incident that was just recently dismissed. I'll grant you that there's a reason it was dismissed, but I still think there's still some smoke there.

                                But even if you ignore that, he had a previous incident with a woman in high school, where, if I recall correctly, he threatened to slap her around if she didn't let him touch her *** or something to that effect.

                                But even if you ignore that, there's the part where despite how talented he is, the team USA (juniors, I guess?) team he initially was a part of decided they wanted nothing to do with him, with some thinly veiled criticism attached in the form of a quote by someone involved in that decision making (the coach? I forget exactly who).

                                But even if you ignore that, there's a reason he was picked at #40 with this kind of obvious talent attached to him. And the Knicks had TWO opportunities to take him right before we did, and passed. The hometown team wanted no part of him with EITHER of their second rounders. And everyone knows how talented he is. Really think about that.

                                But even if you ignore that, there's been comments that basically say the guy rubs teammates the wrong way because of his bad attitude, and it's not just coming from Mike Wells (those with sources here have alluded to it, at least. I thought there was something else to this as well, but admittedly I don't recall at the moment)

                                And you know what? I think I'm forgetting things that could qualify as red flags.

                                You're free to disagree, but man, I'm seeing a LOT, a LOT of smoke here. And frankly, that leaves me giving him NO benefit of the doubt with whatever role he's playing in this recent locker room stuff. He has no credibility to me right now.

                                Until I know exactly what he did I can't assume anything.
                                Of course you can. You couldn't claim to know anything as a fact, but you could assume until the cows come home. There's plenty to work with here.

                                Perhaps he is just the new whipping boy for all the failures of the team.
                                By who? The fans? I'm pretty sure Danny Granger is getting burned at the stake right about now. Darren Collison isn't exactly getting a lot of support anymore, and Mike Dunleavy's been a whipping boy for a while. Roy's losing fans as well.

                                Perhaps he crossed some line that he shouldn't have because he doesn't know better. And perhaps Vogel has to side with the vets because he is afraid he 'll lose the team.
                                Maybe, but even if the kid has/had a point, the odds of him making it with respect are, IMO, slim to none, and as a 20 year old rookie, he should probably shut up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X