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

Nets/Pacers postgame thread

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

  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

    Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
    Give it a week or two and AJ will probably get the minutes. Then a week or two later, Lance will get the minutes. That's how it goes for deeply buried bench players. Who really cares which one plays or sits, they really don't make that much of a difference anyway. And the difference between them certainly shouldn't cause such disdain.
    I think if both are young and you aren't serious contenders, you give the minutes to the guy with the most upside, or in this case Lance.

    Comment


    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

      The funny thing to me is I thought whenever Dunleavy, Murphy, or Artest name was brought up in a thread, it would elicit the most responses

      Seems Lance has trumped those three combined

      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

        ARGHH!!! Why hasn't our middle of the 2nd round player, not shown us he is the best player on the team as Larry Bird has suggested in the whole 16 games he has ever played in!
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
          Please back that statement up with factual evidence as I dont remeber another Pacer saying something to that effect

          I dont also think Bird would have any motivation to call Lance the most talented player on the team, other than he truly believes that

          Now he can be wrong in his assessment , but Bird doesnt strike me as a man who says things he thinks people want to hear
          I actually have evidence to the contrary. When I spoke with Rush a couple of months ago, he said he thought Lance had a lot of talent, but wasn't going to put it together because of his attitude and relations to the players.

          Talent and execution are two different things. It's very easy to bet on Lance's failure to execute, because of his track record, but Bird has consistently said that Lance is talented and implied that he needs to be less of a "numbskull". I wouldn't mix up talent and execution in this case.

          Comment


          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Prior to my last post, no one had given any reason other than the fact that Tyler didn't catch it as why it was a bad pass from Lance.

            This discussion stems from TJ's question of why can they catch passes from DC and not Lance, like it was Lance's fault people can't catch them.
            I do submit that if the pass was always a good pass which is what people seem to assert regarding Lance, that they would be caught much more often than they are. Part of being a good passer is know when and where you're teammates can catch the pass. I could throw a beautiful picture perfect lob at the hoop, but if you can't jump high enough to catch it, then what's the point? Same goes for some of the passes Lance makes, particularly when it comes to some of the force he puts behind the ball. He's not playing with NFL wide receivers out there. He's playing with guys that are dealing with NBA level defenders who do body you up and affect your spacing and ability to catch the ball. JMO though, I believe Lance could definitely stand to adjust the way he passes the basketball. Steve Nash is the perfect example of this in the NBA, no one in the league is better at delivering not only a good looking pass, but one that is also catchable.


            Comment


            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              Collison's typical assist is a pass out to the perimeter and the guy hits the shot.

              Lance is making nifty no look passes for an easy layup. But the phenomenon is so foreign to our players that they are currently fumbling most of them.
              Collison has had several passes in traffic that have been caught by his teammates.


              Comment


              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                I really wasn't trying to blow this thread up into a full blown Lance discussion, when I submitted simply, in my view at least, that I would play AJ over Lance. In the end, I can't believe the discussion is still going on, because frankly I'm not losing that much sleep over Lance playing above AJ, just that it would be my preference to play AJ.


                Comment


                • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I said it's debateable that it was a good pass, and that I thought it was. This is the first time you've said anything about why you thought Lance deserves the blame.

                  I don't think describing the pass that way is anywhere near accurate.


                  As far as your last sentence, I don't know how any clearer I can be with my words so it's just you purposefully distorting what I said.

                  Show me where I said you cannot evaluate someone? I said labeling them an All star or a bust is premature.

                  Do you not see the difference between what I said and what you're claiming I've said?
                  I don't think anyone has called him a bust...all-star, well I guess calling him the most talented player on a roster with two former all stars could be construed as such, but then you'd have to take it up with Larry


                  Comment


                  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                    The funny thing to me is I thought whenever Dunleavy, Murphy, or Artest name was brought up in a thread, it would elicit the most responses

                    Seems Lance has trumped those three combined

                    I just started with the premise that I would prefer to give AJ Lance's minutes. I guess people feel very strongly about it haha


                    Comment


                    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      I do submit that if the pass was always a good pass which is what people seem to assert regarding Lance, that they would be caught much more often than they are. Part of being a good passer is know when and where you're teammates can catch the pass. I could throw a beautiful picture perfect lob at the hoop, but if you can't jump high enough to catch it, then what's the point? Same goes for some of the passes Lance makes, particularly when it comes to some of the force he puts behind the ball. He's not playing with NFL wide receivers out there. He's playing with guys that are dealing with NBA level defenders who do body you up and affect your spacing and ability to catch the ball. JMO though, I believe Lance could definitely stand to adjust the way he passes the basketball. Steve Nash is the perfect example of this in the NBA, no one in the league is better at delivering not only a good looking pass, but one that is also catchable.

                      I understand the difference between a good pass and a bad pass, and that it's not dependent on whether or not the player simply catches the ball.

                      I'm saying that if you're going to say that it's Lances fault for why Tyler didn't catch the ball, then you should probably tell us why you think it's Lances fault with an actual reason as to why Lance should get the blame.

                      And it's not your fault about the blow up. Apparently, I argue with myself.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I don't think anyone has called him a bust...all-star, well I guess calling him the most talented player on a roster with two former all stars could be construed as such, but then you'd have to take it up with Larry
                        Well, you're saying that he should get his minutes reduced and if they're reduced any further they would be zero.

                        If he's not good enough to play, I think he would be considered a bust, just like James White.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                          Sook, I think you overrate Aj's abilities as much as I do Stephensons

                          Stephenson has more natural talent and ability, see's the floor better, has better size and strength, can post up and drive better

                          AJ is a better spot up shooter, higher "basketball IQ", Better 3PT shooter, and is more fundamentally sound than Lance

                          I don't agree with the notion that Vogel is being urged to "give Lance minutes" by someone above him

                          I personally think that Stephenson has the size and strength to guard certain PG's that would give AJ a difficult time and that is why Vogel is getting him spot minutes here and there
                          No, I just simply described things that smart players do.

                          Price is limited athletically, he's also limited talent wise. (I think he's capable at being "good" at pretty much everything. But he probably won't excel at anything.)

                          What people tend to miss, is that he's got one of the highest bball IQs on the team. And Lance has probably got the lowest.

                          People talk about Lance's talent all the time, but no one says what it is. PnR, he's not bad. Midrange, although he hasn't shown it yet, I know (because I've watched him before here) is actually pretty good.

                          Court vision? I suppose that's a bit of a subjective word. People tend to use it for guys who make flashy passes towards the basket. But I think court vision includes the ability to see more than the player you are planning on passing to for the assist. Which Lance absolutely does not.

                          defense? I'll give him credit for trying. But he's being put in an impossible position most of the time. But surely that's not where his talent is.

                          Ball handling? Uh, if he's playing at rucker park. Otherwise, not so much.

                          Passing? He makes "fun" passes. But they aren't very often the right passes. And more often than not, instead of creating for others, he actually gets himself into a bad spot, and depends on other players to bail him out (which is often times Tyler.)

                          Nothing about him screams "talented at organized basketball." He's got some "fun" qualities too him. And he has some attributes (being big and strong) that people like. But if he was to play significant minutes he would hurt the team. And that was never true of any other player on the roster. Not even PG, who started playing organized basketball at a later date than Lance, and was supposed to be more of a project than Lance is.

                          And I think it's obvious that Lance is getting "project minutes" Vogel isn't letting him determine the game at all. Which I have no problem with, but it's like 6-9 minutes a game. His minutes aren't hurting the team. The question is whether he's worth the label of project. I, and a few others, happen to think he dropped into the second round for more reasons than his personality. So I don't know whether Vogel wants to play Lance or not. But I do know he's playing him developmental minutes, he's not playing minutes that suggest Vogel thinks he's capable of contributing significantly.

                          AJ is a smart, fundamentally sound, floor general who can score. He had a tough year last season. For some reason, he isn't afforded the same excuses that every other player on the roster gets (except DC and Danny) despite having an actual reason for playing poorly. I would never say he's close to an all star or anything like that, but I do think he's a very good role player. An excellent backup PG, and would probably make a really good starting PG on some of the more talented teams (the ones with SG's/SF's who need the ball in their hands all the time. IE the Lakers, Miami) because AJ can be a floor general without having the ball in his hands. So I don't think AJ is extremely talented, but I do think he does a lot of things that helps teams win. And I don't think Lance does.

                          Those are the types of players I always like and appreciate. And I do think what AJ brings to the floor would help the second unit. But I've said before that more often than not, the second unit is actually Hill, Dahntay, PG, Tyler, Amundson/Foster. And I'd actually replace Dahntay with AJ. Not because I dislike Dahntay, or I think he's a bad player, but it's just simply a "fit" thing. Lance's minutes really don't matter.
                          Last edited by Sookie; 01-03-2012, 02:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I understand the difference between a good pass and a bad pass, and that it's not dependent on whether or not the player simply catches the ball.

                            I'm saying that if you're going to say that it's Lances fault for why Tyler didn't catch the ball, then you should probably tell us why you think it's Lances fault with an actual reason as to why Lance should get the blame.

                            And it's not your fault about the blow up. Apparently, I argue with myself.
                            I don't remember specifically mentioning the pass between Tyler and Lance, just that in general Lance seems to get a pass for all his passes (ugh) that don't work out.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Well, you're saying that he should get his minutes reduced and if they're reduced any further they would be zero.

                              If he's not good enough to play, I think he would be considered a bust, just like James White.
                              You said it, not me


                              Comment


                              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Well, you're saying that he should get his minutes reduced and if they're reduced any further they would be zero.

                                If he's not good enough to play, I think he would be considered a bust, just like James White.
                                James White never even made the team. Second round picks are almost always a roll of the dice. Aside from Lance and Aj, who is the last 2nd round pick to play in a regular season game for us?

                                Calling a 20 year old second round pick a bust is a bit premature even if he did ride the bench. I don't know why you guys insist on rooting for him to fail.(actually I think I do)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X