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

Chad Ford Chat

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

  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

    Comparing Lance to Hill shows a pretty big misunderstanding in what the two players have accomplished so far. Even before that "just a combo guard" got to the Pacers he was an integral piece of a contending San Antonio team and had been since he was drafted.


    Comment


    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

      Lance will get 5 mil from someone. If Im wrong feel free to call me out this summer, but every bone in my body says 5 mil min. With that said Id offer 4.5-5 max, and only because as a fan I love him.
      If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

      @LetsTalkPacers

      Comment


      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        I must've been unclear. Replacing Danny with Lance is a sign they're starting over. Might as well go young across the board. No need to keep West if your starting wings are Paul and Lance. Not much reason to keep Hibbert or Hll either. Blow it up.

        In other words, Hill + Danny + David + Roy is much >>>>>> than Hill + Lance + David + Roy, and will be over the next three years or so. You're replacing an all-star with a sixth-man who is looking like an okay starter in a pinch (and that's a lot of progress from where he was the past two years, I'm not trying to insult him.) Might as well go young.

        I'd rather keep Danny. But I'm not a fan of youth movements. Its cagey veterans like West, Hill, and Granger that win close games, not young high-flying wings.

        Sorry if I was unclear.
        And let me reiterate my point...
        (I am not suggesting that they(DG and PG) can't play together. I am suggesting that because of PG's ability to play both 2 or 3, that we have the luxury to choose between keeping either Lance or Danny. IF NEED BE!

        I am all for keeping Danny if he will take 6-7 Mil and be the 6th man!!! That would be great! But, if I had to choose between the 2, at this point in their careers (to keep West). I want Lance going forward. )

        My scenario has us banking on Lance's continued progression through next season as our 6th man and then putting the ball back in Danny's court after next year. It has us overpaying Lance by about 2 mil, so we can keep a title core happy and together for 2 years. Once Lance is under contract to us after this summer he can play whatever role we want him to for the next 4-5 years. Starter, 6th Man, ALL-STAR... He is the insurance policy on Danny's knee with tremendous (Tony Parker) upside.

        Comment


        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          No we didn't. Toss the stats out. George Hill had just been promoted to starting PG from a combo guard (which has a way of doing funny things to a player's stats.)

          $8M for your starting PG seems reasonable.
          And 6 Mil for your starting SG is dirt cheap. I had Lance as the starting SG after next season.

          Comment


          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

            Originally posted by LetsTalkPacers84 View Post
            Lance will get 5 mil from someone. If Im wrong feel free to call me out this summer, but every bone in my body says 5 mil min. With that said Id offer 4.5-5 max, and only because as a fan I love him.
            We need to pay Lance whatever it takes! We need to keep pg and Lance together going forward. We will have 2 perennial all stars. I'm so excited for our future!
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

              Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
              And let me reiterate my point...
              (I am not suggesting that they(DG and PG) can't play together. I am suggesting that because of PG's ability to play both 2 or 3, that we have the luxury to choose between keeping either Lance or Danny. IF NEED BE!

              I am all for keeping Danny if he will take 6-7 Mil and be the 6th man!!! That would be great! But, if I had to choose between the 2, at this point in their careers (to keep West). I want Lance going forward. )

              My scenario has us banking on Lance's continued progression through next season as our 6th man and then putting the ball back in Danny's court after next year. It has us overpaying Lance by about 2 mil, so we can keep a title core happy and together for 2 years. Once Lance is under contract to us after this summer he can play whatever role we want him to for the next 4-5 years. Starter, 6th Man, ALL-STAR... He is the insurance policy on Danny's knee with tremendous (Tony Parker) upside.

              I think I get it. You'd take Lance and Paul over Paul and Danny.

              I wouldn't.

              If I can only afford to keep two of the three, I'm keeping Paul and Danny.

              Now, I would move the hypothetically healthy Granger for the hypothetically healthy Gordon in a heartbeat. And there's no way that Lance is in the picture long term if that happens. The hypothetically healthy George and Gordon would each be getting 38 minutes or so, so you'd only need one more wing in your rotation at 20 mpg. That should be a guy on a rookie contract.

              But you only move Danny to get an upper-tier SG, and that doesn't really give you cap relief it just lets you keep using Paul at SF (where I think he belongs)... I'm not opposed to trading Danny but I don't see how trading Danny solves any salary cap problems because his replacement is going to be an expensive SG -- and hopefully one that can create his own shot in the 4Q so that we've got three options - Hill, West, and SG-TBD.
              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


              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                I think I get it. You'd take Lance and Paul over Paul and Danny.

                I wouldn't.

                If I can only afford to keep two of the three, I'm keeping Paul and Danny.

                Now, I would move the hypothetically healthy Granger for the hypothetically healthy Gordon in a heartbeat. And there's no way that Lance is in the picture long term if that happens. The hypothetically healthy George and Gordon would each be getting 38 minutes or so, so you'd only need one more wing in your rotation at 20 mpg. That should be a guy on a rookie contract.

                But you only move Danny to get an upper-tier SG, and that doesn't really give you cap relief it just lets you keep using Paul at SF (where I think he belongs)... I'm not opposed to trading Danny but I don't see how trading Danny solves any salary cap problems because his replacement is going to be an expensive SG -- and hopefully one that can create his own shot in the 4Q so that we've got three options - Hill, West, and SG-TBD.
                Without question you keep Lance over Danny. Granger's best days are behind him and Lance is just getting started. Once Stephenson reaches his prime, he will be better than prime Danny
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                  Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                  And 6 Mil for your starting SG is dirt cheap. I had Lance as the starting SG after next season.
                  And I'm telling you that is no longer a contender. IMO.

                  Teams will start scouting him (Lance) at some point this season. They barely scouted Paul George in the past, and he was a 2-year starter and high draft pick.

                  Assuming that we see a healthy Danny Granger this season, I'm expecting this team to make a substantial improvement at that time when Lance is allowed to be in a sixth-man role and our starting lineup improves because Danny is back.
                  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


                  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                    Without question you keep Lance over Danny. Granger's best days are behind him and Lance is just getting started. Once Stephenson reaches his prime, he will be better than prime Danny
                    Okay. I don't buy that at all, but you're entitled to that opinion.

                    But can I ask a favor? Its hard to take anything seriously when there is a George McCloud avatar staring at me. Can you please make him go away?

                    (I'm kidding...)
                    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


                    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                      Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                      And 6 Mil for your starting SG is dirt cheap. I had Lance as the starting SG after next season.
                      And 6 Mil for your starting SG that isn't even averaging double figures--NOR is giving you elite one-on-one defense is silly.

                      Anything over 4.5 Mil for Lance is overpaying at this point. He's only been good for half of a season thus far within his career.

                      Edit: and I really like Lance.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        If Danny comes back and these 5 plus Ian, Lance and Green primarily go to the Finals with minimal help from Tyler and DJ then you 100% walk away from the $7m those 2 would save you, keep Orlando and Miles on rookie/minimum deals, resign West and save the "oh no Danny and Paul" discussion till you see if you are headed to another Finals run or not the following year......

                        And if the team just doesn't win games or do well in the playoffs THEN you can think about letting West go and moving Danny. But this group HAS NOT FAILED TO KICK A** YET. Can we not cut bait until after they've underperformed this spring? This means you Chad Ford, non-believer.
                        If it were anyone else, as much as you are posting, I would say you're throwing a lot of stuff against the wall to see what is going to stick. But man, from my perspective, you just keep nailing it and almost seem to be expressing my thoughts 90% of the time.

                        Really, I don't know why I bother posting, because you seem to have me covered, and then some. Please keep posting as much as you are now, I am very much enjoying you viewpoints and the evidence you post to support your opinions.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          And 6 Mil for your starting SG that isn't even averaging double figures--NOR is giving you elite one-on-one defense is silly.

                          Anything over 4.5 Mil for Lance is overpaying at this point. He's only been good for half of a season thus far within his career.

                          Edit: and I really like Lance.
                          What's scary is that Lance will only get better. Keep in mind that this is basically his rookie year, as he rarely played his first two seasons. In only half a season, he is already making a name for himself on the NBA level. If there was a 2010 re-draft, based on this season, Lance easily goes top 10.
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                            Just a quick glance at some guards who get around 4-7 mil. Not all but some:

                            Wesley Matthews - $6,505,320 $6,875,480 $7,245,640

                            Josh Childress - $6,500,000 $7,182,500 $7,317,500

                            Francisco Garcia - $6,100,000 $6,400,000

                            Jarrett Jack - $5,580,000

                            Tyreke Evans - $5,251,824 $6,927,156

                            Landry Fields - $5,000,000 $5,225,000 $8,500,000 <---What!?!

                            Courtney Lee - $5,000,000 $5,225,000 $5,450,000 $5,675,000

                            Louis Williams - $5,000,000 $5,225,000 $5,450,000

                            Ramon Sessions - $5,000,000 $5,000,000

                            Kyle Korver - $5,000,000

                            Daniel Gibson - $4,792,332

                            Brandon Rush - $4,000,000 $4,000,000

                            Anthony Morrow - $4,000,000

                            Depending on what you think is important in your guard, and how important chemistry is to you. I think you can really make a case for Lance getting 4-6mil. You can't sell to a players agent paying him less as a starter than you do your SG off the bench in Green unless he was a 6th man type player.

                            Also why the hell is Landry getting 8 mil. Wow someone *****ed up!
                            Last edited by LetsTalkPacers84; 01-10-2013, 05:20 PM.
                            If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                            @LetsTalkPacers

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Comparing Lance to Hill shows a pretty big misunderstanding in what the two players have accomplished so far. Even before that "just a combo guard" got to the Pacers he was an integral piece of a contending San Antonio team and had been since he was drafted.
                              Ok. George Hill was a four year college player. Went to San Antonio and played 16 mpg as a rookie avg. 5 pts... Started 45 games as NBA soph. avg. 12 pts. 3 apg... Went back to bench and decreased his # each year, until this year..

                              Why was he a piece of a contending team? Because Parker, Duncan and Ginobili were on it? George Hill has never been on a team that has ever been to a Conference Finals, let alone an NBA Finals.

                              True. I am being a little fascetious about them not being a contender. But I just don't want to see us lowball Lance and then lose him.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                                Guys like Jamal Crawford and Lou Williams make less than 6M.

                                Who really thinks that Lance is going to command more money than those two?
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X