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

Ford Rejects Buy-Out

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

  • #16
    Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

    It's a bit of a lowball offer.

    I say offer him 6.5 M. That leaves him only 2M to make up. Worst case is that he signs one year for the vet min somehere and is short by a half mill or less for this year. BUT... he actually PLAYS, so that a year from now he gets a much better offer than he would get if (as expected) he is buried on the Pacers bench all season. He clearly would come out ahead, though the benefit would take more than 12 months to gain.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

      I do not blame the guy. With a looming lockout I would want to get as much money as I could. He is not going to make up that 3.5 million dollars any where else unless someone is in desperate need of a PG.

      Teams have seen the way he reacts to being a back up. So people are not going to be jumping over each other to sign him as a back up.

      I would take that extra 3.5 million and sit on the bench.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        How does Dhantay's I'm-only-good-at-defense-but-guess-what-I'm-also-a-ballhog-if-I'm-playing-with-the-second-unit approach make him a team player?

        Back to the real topic at hand. $5 million is a 40% discount from the amount he's already guaranteed to receive. Why on earth would the Pacers think he'd accept that? He's got all the leverage, not the Pacers. I'm not a fan of TJ but nobody is accusing him of being a dummy. This isn't about TJ being greedy by refusing the low-ball buyout offer, its about the Pacers actually believing that was an appropriate buyout offer for the $8.5 million they owe him.

        I'm okay with the Pacers waiving him - they've got to pay the $8.5 million any way, and allowing him to clear waivers and sign with someone else for the vet's minimum so he can prove to them that he can't play anymore.
        I with you on this. Frankly, I'd want to simply move on at this point. Ford's been a good soldier on his part for the last season and I'd simply just cut my loses.

        I don't blame Ford for holding out...if anything...I'd guess it's just a matter of finding the right # that's fair for both parties. $5 mil is just a low-ball offer to me...I'd assume that they just work their way up from that.

        Both sides can be rational about this. Assuming that we have the fall-back option of simply waiving Solo and his $1.5 mil contract ( in order to make space for Rolle ), the Pacers FO has the option to simply take it slow with Ford to see who "blinks". Ford can sit in a suit on the bench for all I care.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

          Off the top of my head, I believe the veteran minimum for him is roughly $1.25M. Subtract that from 8.5M and Ford would probably take the $7.25M and run. He can go sign with the Heat for the veteran minimum. We would be $6+M under the LT at that point.

          PS - Cutting Solo does nothing for us. We still pay him the $1.5M. He still counts against our cap. There is no discount, only the roster spot. I think we are basically trying to get TJ to pay for Rolle's two years in the buyout.

          The earlier TJ takes a buyout, the more money teams will still have at this point though. I think we have to let TJ shop himself to other teams at this point. Gives us a direction for where we can trade him or see what kind of deal his agent can negotiate before we buy him out. If some team wants to beat the veteran minimum and give him a 2+M per year deal then that just saves us that much in a buyout.
          Last edited by pacergod2; 08-12-2010, 12:40 PM.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

            I had said Ford was playing "chicken" yesterday, but that was before I had heard anything about a rumored amount. The $5mm number is silly, and I doubt that even the Pacers expected him to say anything other than, "No." My guess is that number is all that Simon would approve for the moment - or that they were just hoping they'd get lucky.

            As with Tinsley, they know what the worst case scenario is - dollar wise - and they'll see what they can do between now and the start of training camp to mitigate that. However, I'd bet that he's gone before training camp - by hook or by crook.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post

              I think we are basically trying to get TJ to pay for Rolle's two years in the buyout.

              The earlier TJ takes a buyout, the more money teams will still have at this point though. I think we have to let TJ shop himself to other teams at this point. Gives us a direction for where we can trade him or see what kind of deal his agent can negotiate before we buy him out. If some team wants to beat the veteran minimum and give him a 2+M per year deal then that just saves us that much in a buyout.

              Great point! I would never have considered that angle.

              OTOH, it could be said in order to sign Rolle it cost the Pacers 8.5 mil minus discount by buying out Ford for the roster space for Rolle. I'm of the view I'd rather buy out or cut Solo's 1.5 mil contract if he can't be traded, and keep trying to trade Ford. Ford "might" be able to bring back something of value in a trade. Even if nothing more than a player who could be more easier to trade.

              My understanding is that Ford's agent is contacting other teams about him. I'd rather trade him than buy him out, but I doubt he take more than a 15% discount off his salary.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                He should look at what happened to Tinsley's career when he was benched for so long. Take a buy-out and play this season, or refuse, sit the bench, and next year sit the bench for another team. That is a long time to go without being in game shape for an veteran player.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                  TJ would be a fool to take this buyout. He's scheduled to make $8.5M this year. Despite the Collison acquisition, Ford is still likely to see at least some minutes.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                    As much as I want TJ gone, like you guys are saying, he's no dummy. 5 million is simply too low of an offer for a buyout on 8.5. I really think we need to find a way to up the offer or we will be stuck with him. I don't want Ford around when the season comes, it is just going to make things messy and I don't want to see him sitting on the bench either. I will say he handled it pretty well last year though. Maybe we can still package him in a deal for a PF, I hope!
                    Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                      I guess I have a different take than most of you.

                      I think pacers should hold onto him. Depending on which veteran point guards get injured, Ford will have some trade value during the season and at the trade deadline with his expiring.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I guess I have a different take than most of you.

                        I think pacers should hold onto him. Depending on which veteran point guards get injured, Ford will have some trade value during the season and at the trade deadline with his expiring.
                        Very true, his value should actual go up by then. I guess it goes back to the whole patience thing.
                        Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I guess I have a different take than most of you.

                          I think pacers should hold onto him. Depending on which veteran point guards get injured, Ford will have some trade value during the season and at the trade deadline with his expiring.
                          I agree with this. I'd still hold out some hope a deal could get done before the season starts if the various ruminations about Calderon and the Hornets are true
                          SportsTwo.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I guess I have a different take than most of you.

                            I think pacers should hold onto him. Depending on which veteran point guards get injured, Ford will have some trade value during the season and at the trade deadline with his expiring.
                            I agree, I would add that Ford might have been the one that brought this up. The Pacers have to know that his trade value will be high in Feb. If we are anywhere near the 5th or 6th playoff position (possibility) he's a high value expiring. We are under the LT, we're probably going to pay him about 5m by then anyway. It's still a possibility that he will be traded this summer.
                            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Ford Rejects Buy-Out

                              no point in making rash decisions now that we've done so well thus far, yea?
                              Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Ford Reject Buy-Out

                                Originally posted by ChristianDudley View Post
                                But Dahntay is GOOD, a team player, and he plays defense.
                                No he isn't.

                                He's also not at all what I'd consider to be a team player.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X