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

Pacers Payroll

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers Payroll

    Originally posted by foretaz
    the pacers payroll is currently at about $74,000,000 for next year....this will only go up if we resign free agents dale davis, james jones, or john edwards....this also doesnt include the MLE if we were to use it(part of it may need to be used to resign dd)...this also doesnt include the guaranteed contract that comes with a 1st round draft pick....

    it is quite possible we could be staring a payroll of over $80,000,000....yikes

    that would be good enuff for 3rd highest behind only the knicks and the mavericks...thats a wee bit scary.....especially for a small market team....thank god for the good deal on the conseco lease....

    u cant help but think theyre gonna try to cut some salary...somehow....gives some contracts away....they almost have to....i cant believe that number is part of the desired budget....should be interesting....

    4
    Foretaz---

    Placing us in 3rd position next year forgets that other teams will also increase in payroll this off-season.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers Payroll

      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
      Well, maybe Croshere won't exercise the option on his contract.
      If Austin doesn't exercise the option, then he is the biggest team player in the NBA or he's getting money under the table, or both. The contract wasn't a performance-based deal, so he wouldn't have gotten even more money if he would have been a 25-10-5 all-star.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers Payroll

        First off, it doesn't matter how much they spend on salaries. The Simons aren't in it to make money until they sell the team. Every team has bad contracts and I think we could be a lot worse off. Indiana spends a lot but they have a ton of talent. I don't think this is anything worth worrying about.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers Payroll

          Originally posted by Jesus Shuttlesworth
          First off, it doesn't matter how much they spend on salaries. The Simons aren't in it to make money until they sell the team. Every team has bad contracts and I think we could be a lot worse off. Indiana spends a lot but they have a ton of talent. I don't think this is anything worth worrying about.
          It matters greatly how much they spend on salaries. As much as we grouse and complain about needing to make a championship type move one of the biggest impediments is exactly our salary situation. If payroll wasn't an issue then (unless somebody knows some deep dark secret or coverup that dwarfs 'migrainegate') then Brad Miller would still be here. It would've been a no brainer to go ahead and resign him... Afterall, if the conditioning issue proved true then we could've just mothballed him and went another direction since it would 'only be money'.

          Anything that gets in the way of the team's flexibility to improve or a championship quest worries me. Overpaying players is a serious problem to any team's aspirations unless ownership or management has a money tree and is willing to continually throw cash towards a championship.

          The Pacers are a team that will, to a point, pay players well. But, "loyal to a fault" is a discussion angle that I've had many times. I'm sure many teams do have bad contracts but how many teams have 3 of their biggest contracts going to players who will barely take the floor if at all? That's a problem that needs to be addressed and it can't keep happening if this team wants to take its best shot at winning a championship.



          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers Payroll

            Originally posted by Bball
            It matters greatly how much they spend on salaries. As much as we grouse and complain about needing to make a championship type move one of the biggest impediments is exactly our salary situation. If payroll wasn't an issue then (unless somebody knows some deep dark secret or coverup that dwarfs 'migrainegate') then Brad Miller would still be here. It would've been a no brainer to go ahead and resign him... Afterall, if the conditioning issue proved true then we could've just mothballed him and went another direction since it would 'only be money'.

            Anything that gets in the way of the team's flexibility to improve or a championship quest worries me. Overpaying players is a serious problem to any team's aspirations unless ownership or management has a money tree and is willing to continually throw cash towards a championship.

            The Pacers are a team that will, to a point, pay players well. But, "loyal to a fault" is a discussion angle that I've had many times. I'm sure many teams do have bad contracts but how many teams have 3 of their biggest contracts going to players who will barely take the floor if at all? That's a problem that needs to be addressed and it can't keep happening if this team wants to take its best shot at winning a championship.



            -Bball

            NBA owners are worried about winning, not making money off the team. They pay what they have to pay. I'm sure they don't want to spend past a certain limit but it still doesn't really matter to anyone but the people paying the salaries.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers Payroll

              Our team salary total has skyrocketed because the Pacers correctly guessed there would be no luxury tax this season. It looks like they are guessing the same is true for next season. If it turns out the Simon bro think a luxury tax is going to be levied big time on the Pacers this coming season, watch Pacers team salaries take a dive immediately.

              Team salaries were held in check two years ago because of the threat of the luxury tax. The same was true for most teams. It is a mistake to think most NBA owners don't care about finances and just want to win.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers Payroll

                Originally posted by Bball
                It matters greatly how much they spend on salaries. As much as we grouse and complain about needing to make a championship type move one of the biggest impediments is exactly our salary situation. If payroll wasn't an issue then (unless somebody knows some deep dark secret or coverup that dwarfs 'migrainegate') then Brad Miller would still be here. It would've been a no brainer to go ahead and resign him... Afterall, if the conditioning issue proved true then we could've just mothballed him and went another direction since it would 'only be money'.
                Wow. You are so wrong.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers Payroll

                  Originally posted by Harmonica
                  Wow. You are so wrong.
                  No. He is so right. But maybe for the wrong reason.

                  Total team salary matters a great deal to the Simons.

                  Although it is correct to say that their big payday will come when they sell the team, they still do not want to absorb large annual losses on the way to that payday. They might be willing to take a hit in any one single year, but they certainly wouldn't want to take a hit year after year.

                  Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that somebody has to pay for those salaries. And it isn't going to be the Simons. That leaves, oh about 17,000 other people to pay for the higher salaries.

                  That's right. Eventually, higher ticket prices will cover the expense.

                  However, Indy is a small-to-mid market team. Which basically means that the typical fan in Indy is only willing to absorb up to a certain threshhold before they begin attending fewer games.

                  So, wierd as it may seem, there is a pretty delicate balance between fan attendance and player salaries.

                  The Simons don't really want higher salaries because they really don't want to have to raise ticket prices. But if their choices came down to taking large losses year after year or raising ticket prices, I assure you they would raise ticket prices.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers Payroll

                    Originally posted by Harmonica
                    Wow. You are so wrong.
                    You can't have this both ways... or you are misreading me....

                    Are you saying the Pacers were so convinced that Brad Miller would break down at the end of every season or longer term that they weren't interested in him at all?

                    ....Or they were uncertain of him enough that they (management) didn't want to tie up big money long term?

                    If it is the second one, which I believed it to be, then what is wrong about my reply to Jesus? Jesus said that the Simons didn't care about money or team salary. IF that was true (and I believe it to be false) then why not roll the dice and sign Brad Miller to whatever the NBA market value proved to be (matching his best offer)? According to Jesus, the Simons' wouldn't care... it's only money. And Brad Miller was coming off an All Star season, was a true center, and already a Pacer. If he breaks down, so be it, Jesus says the Simons don't care about the money. If a light bulb goes off and he learns about conditioning, or sidesteps injury anyway, then they are ahead of the game.

                    To me, the target keeps moving on this issue of Brad Miller. I don't see how my comment can be wrong at all unless you are now saying they wanted rid of Brad Miller.

                    I wish the team applied the same rules to other players rather than continually deal in double standards.

                    My point to Jesus was the Simons care about money.... at the least they care about 'losing' money or throwing it down too big of a hole. If they did not care at all (as Jesus claimed) then not resigning Brad Miller was stupid. He'd have to be worth the gamble if you didn't care about coming up snake-eyes. There'd simply be no penalty that would matter. If he becomes injured the Simons would just shrug because they don't care about the money (Jesus says). He'd be no worse than having Pollard around.

                    OTOH... If the Simons did care about money then you have to weigh the pluses and minuses on Brad Miller and his long term ability to stay on the court and you have a decision to make. Which is where I believe the truth to be.

                    I'm telling Jesus money matters.

                    You're now saying (altho maybe you don't mean to be) that either money doesn't matter or that the Pacers wanted Brad gone at any cost. Otherwise, I don't see how you can disagree with my comment.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers Payroll

                      Originally posted by Bball
                      You can't have this both ways... or you are misreading me....

                      Are you saying the Pacers were so convinced that Brad Miller would break down at the end of every season or longer term that they weren't interested in him at all?

                      ....Or they were uncertain of him enough that they (management) didn't want to tie up big money long term?

                      If it is the second one, which I believed it to be, then what is wrong about my reply to Jesus? Jesus said that the Simons didn't care about money or team salary. IF that was true (and I believe it to be false) then why not roll the dice and sign Brad Miller to whatever the NBA market value proved to be (matching his best offer)? According to Jesus, the Simons' wouldn't care... it's only money. And Brad Miller was coming off an All Star season, was a true center, and already a Pacer. If he breaks down, so be it, Jesus says the Simons don't care about the money. If a light bulb goes off and he learns about conditioning, or sidesteps injury anyway, then they are ahead of the game.

                      To me, the target keeps moving on this issue of Brad Miller. I don't see how my comment can be wrong at all unless you are now saying they wanted rid of Brad Miller.

                      I wish the team applied the same rules to other players rather than continually deal in double standards.

                      My point to Jesus was the Simons care about money.... at the least they care about 'losing' money or throwing it down too big of a hole. If they did not care at all (as Jesus claimed) then not resigning Brad Miller was stupid. He'd have to be worth the gamble if you didn't care about coming up snake-eyes. There'd simply be no penalty that would matter. If he becomes injured the Simons would just shrug because they don't care about the money (Jesus says). He'd be no worse than having Pollard around.

                      OTOH... If the Simons did care about money then you have to weigh the pluses and minuses on Brad Miller and his long term ability to stay on the court and you have a decision to make. Which is where I believe the truth to be.

                      I'm telling Jesus money matters.

                      You're now saying (altho maybe you don't mean to be) that either money doesn't matter or that the Pacers wanted Brad gone at any cost. Otherwise, I don't see how you can disagree with my comment.

                      -Bball
                      I don't, I clearly misinterpreted your original reply to JS. I thought I was going to have to give you some smartass reply of "I'm not going to explain it again. If you don't get it after a million times, you're not going to get it after a million and one."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X