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

Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

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

  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

    I am stoked to see some team fire a max level offer McGee's way. He is dumb and unmotivated now, just think how bad it will be when you actually pay him. Good riddance.

    Comment


    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

      Maybe they really haven't decided to match or not, but if they really haven't then that's really discouraging for me. It drastically changes the free agency priorities whichever way you go with it, get a damn plan together.

      Comment


      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

        It's a game. Does Roy really want to sign with Portland with their injury history? I'm guessing not.

        If the FO refuses to publically say they want to keep him, Roy might be stuck in Portland if he signs their offer sheet. Roy's doing everything he can to show that he's not just using Portland as leverage (including following Portland players on Twitter).

        It doesn't hurt the Pacers one bit to wait to "decide'". They've most likely decided to keep him privately. It's a matter of whether Roy and his agent break and settle for less than the Portland offer before signing the Portland offer sheet.

        It's a standoff and Pacers can only gain by waiting.

        Comment


        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

          I really don't think Roy is coming back. If you can, take emotion out of it, step away, and look from an outside perspective. Hibbert isn't worth 13 million dollars. If Roy Hibbert played for a random team like Minnesota, and was never a Pacer or a crowd favorite, and the Pacers offered him a max deal while only averaging 12-8, I don't think many Pacer fans would be on board with that
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

            He's gone. Plumlee is going to be our starting center. Maybe we could get a sign and trade. I don't know if it's legal but Batum for Hibbert would be nice and sign Kaman and Mayo

            Comment


            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              The case for $14m for Roy is that he's an all-star,
              That is by far the least relevant reason to keep him. It's nice to say, "Roy's an all-star," but it's not that important. He played well enough for me to want to keep him. If he'd been left off the all-star team despite having the exact same season otherwise, I'd feel exactly the same way; it's nice to reference it as a shorthand for 'he's pretty good', but I'm not some star-struck idiot who is in love with him all the more because of a label.

              that centers are hard to come by and that any team would greatly value the opportunity to pay Roy $14m because of those factors.
              Not any team. If you have a better center, or you have a star power forward, he's not as important to you. We are not in that position. We don't have 2003 JO suiting up in the fall.

              This leads to the natural conclusion that a super-valuable guy (getting FAIR MARKET by the "match the offer" side)
              If this is in any way an attempt to spin my opinion to therefore suggest I think Roy is worth a max contract in and of itself, you are mistaken. Of course he's overpaid. But I understand that a team in our situation when faced with matching a guy like him, it's probably a good idea to bite the bullet and overpay because IMO the risk of letting him go is worse than the speculative reward.

              paired with another really strong, former AS SF, would make a strong case for a trade for a single AS center.
              You really need to get over this idea because that was not something I was pushing, and I didn't see anyone else doing it, either.

              But I think when you put real names to this claimed Roy fair-market value things start to sound iffy. How can you pay a guy $14m if you're telling me he's not viewed as good enough to get a guy like Dwight when paired with Granger in a trade?

              And if that deal can get done then I do think the Pacers should look at it.
              Because, as I think everyone here admits, he IS going to be overpaid. That's not the question. The question is: Is overpaying to keep Roy a good idea? I say it is.

              As for options if you keep Roy, I'm not against keeping Roy and I keep saying that. I'm just mulling over the value add not just this year but the next couple of years. What if West continues to improve from the knee recovery and goes for 25-8 averages this year, wouldn't you want to keep him for 2-3 more years and wish you had the money to do so?
              When has he ever averaged 25pts? And it's not like there aren't other contracts on the team salary you can move if need be if room is required. If it's such an okay concept to move on from Roy, it should be AT LEAST as okay to consider punting on Danny Granger. Small forward is the EASIEST position to replace out of the five with a stop-gap role player. (Yes, you still need to be talented at other spots, but the point remains small forward is usually the 5th most valuable position of the 5, in general).

              What if a great player on one of these super teams isn't working out next season and they start looking for a team to absorb a bail out and change.
              Vague speculation leading to a hopeful assumption.

              If you match Roy then you are buying into the team as Hill-Paul-Danny-West-Roy-DC-(one more guy). I loved what they could do at times this year so I'm not really against that as a future. I'm just concerned because it's a crossroads where you are committing to their own progress as the means for improvement to title status.
              So be it, but again you can still trade people later to try to find a better fit within the core. We won't necessarily have those same 6-7 guys for many years. May only be one year before one of them gets moved or replaced. I wouldn't be shocked if DC is gone before November. And ultimately, contracts are not seven year monsters like they used to be. We're talking a four year window here. Long, but not THAT long.

              It's stupid not to question it a little and wonder if it's definitely the right thing to do. You are saying that the superstar the team needs is already here in the form of Roy.
              NO ONE IS SAYING ROY IS A DAMNED SUPERSTAR. Knock it off!

              No, it's not stupid to question if this is the team we should roll with, generally speaking, but it is stupid to assume the grass is necessarily going to be greener if we let Roy go.

              Roy showed nice signs, but "superstar" or regular all-star signs? I don't think he's come close to showing Smits' level of consistency and offensive threat.
              He's not a superstar. I'm not claiming he is, either. No one here is saying "OMG Roy is a superstar!!!1111one".

              As for comparing him to Smits, how consistent was Smits in Year 4? What was that, 1992? And in any case, I think Roy's all around game is at least as good as Rik Smits. He's clearly a better rebounder at this point, too. Him not having the sweet shot that Rik had doesn't change that.

              Comment


              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Nash and EJ came here to talk. They weren't offered as much money as they took elsewhere.

                Neither said "F Indianapolis, I'd take less to play elsewhere". Both said "well your team is good enough but so are other teams and they want to pay me more". If the Pacers threw a 3/39m at Nash he'd be a Pacer right now without a doubt. And as it was the Lakers had to give up 2 first round picks, one of which might have good value in a few years.
                Pretty sure Nash is making less than 10 per year in LA, and we offered him 10 per year. As for Gordon, you're right we did not apparently offer him the max, but A) He has serious injury concerns, but more importantly B) New Orleans was always going to match ANY offer we could possible make. He's not going anywhere.

                Comment


                • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                  ^^Love me some Smits, but he did benefit from having an alpha dog enforcer inside and a deadly dagger throwing assassin outside.^^

                  edit...and one of the best passers in the game getting him the ball in the exact position to shoot.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                    Originally posted by gummy View Post
                    Thank-you for saying it, I was just about to.

                    So should I get the custom jersey that says CAP SPACE or ABLE TO SINCERELY TALK? I guess that wont fit, might have to go with SINCERELY TALK, huh?
                    I think I'll go with FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY if it fits.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                      Now the McGee's getting some acknowledgement, with that said, and I love McGee's potential, I'd never trust him with a max contract, I'd trust Roy as much or more than any player in the league. Ya, maybe he's not worth it by the numbers, but I feel good that he'd keep trying to be, with McGee I'd be afraid everytime I'd try to contact him and he didn't pick up by the 3rd ring.

                      McGee has an enourmous ceiling, imo, but he's an enourmous risk post 'getting paid'

                      Comment


                      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        I'm sitting in MSA in Rik's 2nd season. The guy behind me yells "Smits is a clown, Smits you clown, you stink".

                        So I'm not rationalizing how virulent fan reaction can be to guys who get paid and don't deliver, as the fanbase thinks they should. Your nuts to think it can't get caustic even for the starting center. Roy is about to be the 2nd highest paid Pacer ever behind only JO...but you don't think there is pressure there or emotional stakes with the fanbase?
                        Comparing Smits' play and pay his sophomore year to Roy entering his 5th with this new deal is silly. And people hating on Rik Smits back when he looked (so I'm told) like a bust (and, by the way, SMITS WAS THE NUMBER TWO FREAKIN' PICK, not Roy) means nothing to me. There's always some jackass heckling the team.

                        More importantly, you're again assuming Roy is going to be disappoint. That is not something you should just assume. It's fair to assume he'll be about the same, not worse. And if you're going to assume one way or the other (better, or worse) BETTER is more logical because we know he's a very hard worker who has proven his dedication thus far to improving his body and his game, he's not injury prone as of right now, and he's already shown significant improvement (hell, dating back to when he started college, actually). He's an A+ hard worker, yet now I'm supposed to assume he's going to regress? Hell no.

                        Cripes, Knicks fans questioned Ewing's value at times.
                        All the more reason to not care what hecklers/'haters' think, let alone on top of this notion Roy's most likely going to regress/disappoint.

                        This year, at PLAYOFF GAMES, and down where people had to spend to come see the game, I heard plenty of Roy complaints. I actually often disagreed with the stuff I overheard. But the point is that some pretty devoted fans already have high expectations for Roy, ones that aren't realistic IMO, and that will only get worse on the new deal.
                        So what? They gonna stop going to games? How many do you think are going to leave? You really want to argue there are as many whiners like them to equal or out-weight those who like/love Roy? Really?

                        So you can lose fans by not signing him and floundering and you can lose fans if you do sign him and flounder.

                        The key, as always, is simply to be successful. The sin of losing Roy can be forgiven as much as the sin of intentionally moving Chuck or Det.
                        Of course winning will take care of it, but there's one teeny, tiny little issue: HOW THE EFF ARE WE ASSUMING WE WILL DO THAT BY GIVING THIS ROSTER A WORSE STARTING CENTER? Some mysterious superstar is going to request to be traded to Indiana?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                          Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                          What about Javale McGee? Would he be a legite replacement for Roy? Would he be to expensive or has he already been signed? Just thinking!
                          For one thing, he'd probably command around what DeAndre Jordan did, which I think is at least 10m per year, and for another, he's a restricted free agent, and for yet another, the dude has shown himself to be an idiot or a child on multiple occasions while he was with the Wizards (from what I understand; correct me if I'm wrong), which is a serious concern.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            My mistake, I thought the deal was 3/37, not 3/27. So he passed on 10m from Indy to take 9m from the Lakers because they had Kobe. That's not really that bad, it's certainly not "doing you a favor" money.
                            And because his kids live near that part of the country, which he has emphasized as being important to him. We didn't have a shot. Maybe if we save up our cap space we'll be on the west coast and have a guy like Kobe to recruit him for us. And a front court as stacked as Gasol/Bynum.

                            And I think if it was going to be add Nash, keep Roy, then Nash made a mistake. I think the Pacers needed Nash more than the Lakers in terms of W-L improvement, which given the last season means that Nash Pacers would be much better than Nash Lakers.
                            Agreed.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                              Originally posted by BrownBearCoffee View Post
                              I can actually understand the FO being skeptical of giving Roy the max. Consistency is not an attribute he displays. However, he is a 7'2'' skilled center. Moving him next year around draft time is always an option, or even at the deadline this year ala Nene.
                              I think this option is getting left by the wayside. Unless Roy just REALLY crashes and burns next year, he should be pretty easy to trade if we thought that was the right move.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                Maybe they really haven't decided to match or not, but if they really haven't then that's really discouraging for me. It drastically changes the free agency priorities whichever way you go with it, get a damn plan together.
                                Well, to be fair, I'm sure they've been putting together detailed contingency plans for whatever may happen. Kind of like preparing for draft night.

                                Wait, we took Plumlee on draft night. Nevermind.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X