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 may lack needed funds

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

  • Pacers may lack needed funds

    Pacers may lack needed funds

    With James Jones, Davis also on wish list, Indiana may be outbid for Lithuanian guard.

    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com


    Indiana Pacers president Larry Bird has proved his devotion to Sarunas Jasikevicius of Lithuania by making sojourns to Europe to scout and meet the guard.

    Whether Bird has enough influence and -- more importantly -- available funds to woo the point guard, however, could be determined this week. Free agent signings and trades can be executed beginning Friday, if the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized by then.

    With the premier free agent guards having reached agreements, Jasikevicius has moved closer to the forefront of desirable catches. The Pacers remain in contention but have competition from teams that might have more money to spend.

    Cleveland, Portland, Houston, Dallas and Seattle are among the teams believed to have interest in the 29-year-old, who has gained rock-star fame in Europe after starring in the Olympics and leading his Tel Aviv, Israel, team to the past two Euroleague titles.

    Jasikevicius' agent, Doug Neustadt, is seeking a three-year, $10 million contract. The Pacers could afford such a deal with a portion of their midlevel exception, which allows them to award a contract of about $5 million next season. They also want to re-sign free agents Dale Davis and James Jones, however, which presents the challenge of fitting three players into one hole.

    "They're just waiting to get the best offer," Bird said of Jasikevicius and Neustadt. "There's not much we can do."

    The Pacers' primary competition for Jasikevicius appears to be Cleveland, which is seeking a starting point guard and has $5 million-6 million left to spend on free agents. The Cavaliers have reached an agreement to re-sign center Zydrunas Ilgauskas, a fellow Lithuanian and a longtime friend of Jasikevicius. The two reportedly attended the recent Wimbledon tennis championship together.

    "It's nice that he's friends with Ilgauskas, but he's not making a decision based on that," Neustadt said. "Anytime Larry Bird's interested in a player, it has to carry some weight. Sarunas is very pleased that Larry likes him as a player.

    "(The Pacers) would be an interesting fit. They're on the brink of doing some things."

    Davis has reported interest from teams such as Seattle, New Jersey, Cleveland and Philadelphia, but it remains unclear what salary he will command. Davis earned more than $10 million last season in the final year of a contract he signed with the Pacers in 2000, but at 36 he faces a major pay cut. Just how big remains to be seen.

    "Dale has a great fondness for the Pacers, but (a new contract) has to be a fair value," his agent Chubby Wells said. "Like anything else, we're going to look at all of our options and see what teams are offering."

    The Pacers' negotiating interest in Davis could be limited by the presence of four other players already on their roster who can fill the center spot: Jeff Foster, Jermaine O'Neal, Scot Pollard and David Harrison.

    Bird emphasized the Pacers don't intend to let restricted free agent James Jones get away unless an improbable offer comes his way.

    Jones, a second-round pick in 2003, averaged 4.9 points last season. The Pacers can match any offer he receives from another team.

    "James Jones will be matched," Bird said.

    Call Star reporter Mark Montieth at (317) 444-6406.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  • #2
    Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

    'james jones will be matched'

    i respect larry alot....and i understand that all teams that have the ability to match a contract have to let it be known that they will do so to help discourage other teams from getting involved....

    but is there anyone that thinks the pacers will match if someone offers jj a contract that has a starting salary of 4 or 5 million???

    i doubt it...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

      Some dissapointment in reading this, I was always sure they would re-sign JJ, so no nes there, unless if someone offers him outrageous money he will be back and if he gets outrageous money then good luck, he deserved it.

      As for the DD commentts and the comments of his agent, enough never seems enough, now I can understand a guy aged 26 or even 29 going for the BIG money, after all it is their one big chance to strike it really rich, however at 36 one would think that playing becomes a luxury, and the choice of where to "end" your career, certainly after seeing the farewell we gave uncle Reg, would have more influence then a million more or less.
      (I am pretty sure DD would be able to make up any differences in local endorsements with his popularity in Indy)
      Yet the sounds are close to the same when we "lost" him first time, "it aint about where I play, it's about the money".

      No idea if the "rumours" are true that others are offering more, but IMO he has to realize that with Harrison coming up and Jeff Healthy again, Polly here for the start, LB might not let him overplay his hand.

      As far as saras goes, Those comments form the agent are more realistic then others, he plainly states that being friends with Z does not mean Saras will join Cleveland if the same money is on the table, in other words if it stays within something the P's can afford he will (more then likely) choose the P's, now whether it goes beyond that starting 5 mil is the big question.

      I am just wondering whether this article and the info about the FA's we are trying to sign has secondary reasons, it seems somewhat out of line for this organization to "inform" us the fans in this way, so what would that be?
      A. letting pp lknow we do want JJ back
      B. preparing people that we might not re-sign DD
      C. preparing people we might not be able to sign Saras

      D. or more subtle, do "drop" the idea of DD in favour of Saras if need be

      I am going for A and D, which makes B a given and C a possibility.
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

        ill tell u the way i see this article....

        i see it as a way of trying to keep the price down on all the players mentioned...

        putting the idea out there that the pacers will not be party to a bidding war....

        as far as jj is concerned, its the same thing, but in reverse, by saying they will match, they hope to eliminate a bidding war...by elimininating suitors..

        i dont really think saras is to the point where the public would be disappointed if hes not signed....i think by and large, that most dont know enuff about him....and that even amongst the die hards, as is clearly seen on here, there is a differing opinion on him...

        there is no doubt in my mind the person who will be most disappointed if we dont sign saras is bird....

        i see bird trying to not overplay his hand and therefore trying to stay out of a bidding war for saras and dd...by saying no matter how much we might like ya, we cant afford ya....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

          Dale is dissapointing me. He said when he came here, that money would not be an option when it came time to resign.
          Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

            I tell you what this article is doing IMHO... Giving us a summary of what is happening (at least the stuff they feel comfortable talking about). Not a super-secret message to be decoded. Not a veiled message to the other teams. Just some info in midsummer.

            -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


            • #7
              Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

              I think I got to agree with Bball. I know we all want our favirite bal palyers to suck it up fo rthe team, but realy money talks, we are human and we all want lots of it. Dale is human, and hell who can blame a guy in his last years from trying to take all he can get. I would love to see him be a stand up guy and say I am going to show loyalty to the pacers, but hell we let him go years ago because of money.
              No matter how much success Larry Bird attains in Indiana he'll never top that first command to fire Thomas. -Peter Vecsey. NY Post 12/4/07

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                David Harrison comes back healthy and eager and DD becomes an afterthought. A nice guy to have at the end of the bench and in the locker room, but an afterthought on the floor. 10 minutes a game. I like him and his strength but he's not going to play much so we sure as heck aren't going to "open market" his paycheck.
                Glad they are going to match on JJ, I think this kid brings more than the "trade value" that many here seem to think. He seems "clutch", has the best jumper on a team desperate for shooters, and is a surprisingly good shot blocker in the paint. I think if Granger pans out we could easily move Jax and give Freddie (going to bust out), Granger,JJ and Artest those 2 and 3 spot minutes.
                As to the pg, guess it would nice to have him if Larry thinks he's for real, but we are fine without him too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                  What I fear is happening is that the P's are not willing to go deeper into luxury tax territory to make this team better and they don't have the balls to say so.

                  I don't think Austin Croshere will be on this team either when the season starts. He'll be a luxury tax amnesty headline, along with Michael Finley, Allen Houston and Brian Grant, etc.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                    Originally posted by sixthman
                    What I fear is happening is that the P's are not willing to go deeper into luxury tax territory to make this team better and they don't have the balls to say so.

                    I don't think Austin Croshere will be on this team either when the season starts. He'll be a luxury tax amnesty headline, along with Michael Finley, Allen Houston and Brian Grant, etc.
                    and with brian grant possibly available, and him having a friend in JO...it might be possible to land grant....portland might have the best chance...but if grant is a possibility, then dale might be a bit more expendable if the money isnt right....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                      Originally posted by Shack80
                      I think I got to agree with Bball. I know we all want our favirite bal palyers to suck it up fo rthe team, but realy money talks, we are human and we all want lots of it. Dale is human, and hell who can blame a guy in his last years from trying to take all he can get. I would love to see him be a stand up guy and say I am going to show loyalty to the pacers, but hell we let him go years ago because of money.
                      We gave him money, the most we could give him, and he still *****ed about not having enough, that's why we traded him. It's not like we offered him some low number.
                      Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        and with brian grant possibly available, and him having a friend in JO...it might be possible to land grant....portland might have the best chance...but if grant is a possibility, then dale might be a bit more expendable if the money isnt right....
                        Teams are now again spooked by the luxury tax, including the Pacers, and that is the new reality. We are deep into luxury tax territory, like few other teams, and any honest commentary about the Pacers needs to include that factor.

                        Because of the apparent certainty that there will be a luxury tax, signing a player for three million, does not cost us three million, it costs six million.

                        You are offering a decent rationale for not re-signing Dale Davis and James Jones, if the bidding for those two gets above minimum levels. But who is to say how much signing Brian Grant will cost? Fact is, if that bidding gets a little expensive, which it probably will, I'm afraid the Pacers would bow out of that bidding too.

                        I doubt we add any new salary to this roster, unless the new player is signed at the minimum, or an absolute steal.

                        For there to be a significant addition to the Pacers roster this off-season via free agency, it looks to me the Pacers will need to find a way to shed some salary, beyond the one-time luxury tax amnesty opportunity.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                          Originally posted by sixthman
                          .

                          For there to be a significant addition to the Pacers roster this off-season via free agency, it looks to me the Pacers will need to find a way to shed some salary, beyond the one-time luxury tax amnesty opportunity.

                          I've seen a couple of post on us being into the tax area already, but I haven't been able to find anything online to show our 05/06 projected payroll, or what the tax threshold would be. It would seem that we shouldn't be much over if any at this point. We weren't over it last year, and the only difference would be in the year to year salary increases the players get. If we dump Cro with the amnesty waiver, I would think that would more then cover the gap, and we should be able to safely use our MLE, and vet exception this year without being over the tax threshold.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                            Originally posted by sixthman
                            Teams are now again spooked by the luxury tax, including the Pacers, and that is the new reality. We are deep into luxury tax territory, like few other teams, and any honest commentary about the Pacers needs to include that factor.

                            Because of the apparent certainty that there will be a luxury tax, signing a player for three million, does not cost us three million, it costs six million.

                            You are offering a decent rationale for not re-signing Dale Davis and James Jones, if the bidding for those two gets above minimum levels. But who is to say how much signing Brian Grant will cost? Fact is, if that bidding gets a little expensive, which it probably will, I'm afraid the Pacers would bow out of that bidding too.

                            I doubt we add any new salary to this roster, unless the new player is signed at the minimum, or an absolute steal.

                            For there to be a significant addition to the Pacers roster this off-season via free agency, it looks to me the Pacers will need to find a way to shed some salary, beyond the one-time luxury tax amnesty opportunity.
                            until we get the details regarding the compensation of the players that are released by the amnesty waiver, we really dont know....however, if its similar to the regular waivers program then where the player wants to play might be a far bigger concern than how much money is paid....its quite possible there will be a set (vet min) salary for these players, in which case it will be all about where that player wants to play(somewhat like what dale did last year) and therefore the pacers would probably be on a short list for brian...

                            all that being said, this is a ton of speculation....as there are still numerous questions regarding the interworkings of the amnesty clause as well as not knowing who will be released....some of these answers will come very soon, while others might last into october....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers may lack needed funds

                              Originally posted by Pacerized
                              I've seen a couple of post on us being into the tax area already, but I haven't been able to find anything online to show our 05/06 projected payroll, or what the tax threshold would be. It would seem that we shouldn't be much over if any at this point. We weren't over it last year, and the only difference would be in the year to year salary increases the players get. If we dump Cro with the amnesty waiver, I would think that would more then cover the gap, and we should be able to safely use our MLE, and vet exception this year without being over the tax threshold.

                              we were way over last year, and will be way over this year without some drastic measures...and waiving croshere under the amnesty rule wont be enuff...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X