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)

    Honestly I could care less at "overspending" at this point for Roy. It's not like we're getting any superstar to come here anyways and fat lot of good having cap space did us this summer every top free agent who was banging the "want to be competitive and go to best situation and get money" sure look like a bunch of hypocrites right now. It's a ****** situation because of who we are and where we are we have to keep our own players who got us to where we are at and hope beyond hope that someone on our team improves like crazy. Anyone is advocating for us to let Roy go on account that we could spend that money elsewhere on someone else later is just

    *removed*

    . It didn't get us anywhere this summer it's not going to later when we're an even less attractive of a draw than we are now cause we let Roy walk. Unless we draft the next Michael Jordan we're never going to have a superstar on this team. I had a glimmer of hope for this offseason given the cirucmstances but that's pretty much been snuffed out.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Freddie fan View Post
      Have you looked at Kaman's injury history? In the four seasons preceding last year's strike-shortened season, he has played 56, 31, 76, 32 games. That's an average of 48.75 per year. At what salary is it a good investment to pay a player who averages not much more than half a season of play each year?
      Well I found this blog write-up that certainly supports the negative view of Kaman from a Clips fan, kinda makes some pretty compelling cases to not pursue Kaman as much and maybe consider Roy more due to health.

      http://clipperblog.com/2011/05/11/th...s-lost-season/

      A snippet, though there are positive points made in the blog too...
      Originally posted by clipperblog
      While it would stand to reason that Kaman’s game and experience would help a team built around such young players win, that may not actually be the case. The numbers just don’t show the team playing very well with him in the lineup. According to 82games.com, the vast majority of the Clippers successful five-man units have DeAndre, not Kaman, at center.
      Kaman’s shooting ability would suggest that he’s an ideal post partner for Griffin, but he also still has a tendency to be indecisive with the ball and his turnover rate is not much better than Jordan’s. While his skill set fits in theory, it’s conceivable that the Clippers decide to shop him for the elusive small forward they have been seeking or some combination of assets.

      Comment


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

        I do not understand how Portland can do the Pacers a favor. The Pacers are the only team that can offer him 5 years and more than $58 million. If they think the offer Portland will be making is already overpaying why would they even consider going higher? What leverage do Roy and his agent have to demand even more money? Refuse to play or take the qualifing offer might do him more harm than good.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Hey, I can relate. I thought I could live with Gordon and Villanueva, too...
          There's really no comparison between Villanueva and McGee. One's a buttery-soft tweener; the other is an efficient, 24-year-old double-double machine, who's also one of the league's elite shot blockers.

          As for Mayo, as long as the contract's reasonable -- say, $7M per-season -- I'll be pleased with the signing. I trust that our management is smart enough not to offer him $11M per-season as Dumars did with Ben Gordon.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            Who the hell agreed those were the terms? You're speaking nonsense as far as I can tell. This 'all all-stars have equally value' talk is nonsense. I never said that or otherwise intended to imply such a silly thing.

            WE ARE IN A POSITION TO KEEP OUR STARTING FIVE AND STILL IMPROVE THE BENCH.
            The case for $14m for Roy is that he's an all-star, that centers are hard to come by and that any team would greatly value the opportunity to pay Roy $14m because of those factors. This leads to the natural conclusion that a super-valuable guy (getting FAIR MARKET by the "match the offer" side) paired with another really strong, former AS SF, would make a strong case for a trade for a single AS center.

            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.



            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? 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.



            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.

            Roy and Paul could improve enough to get you there, but this is it, this is the moment of truth so to speak.

            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. 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.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-05-2012, 04:41 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              There's really no comparison between Villanueva and McGee. One's a buttery-soft tweener; the other is an efficient, 24-year-old double-double machine, who's also one of the league's elite shot blockers.

              As for Mayo, as long as the contract's reasonable -- say, $7M per-season -- I'll be pleased with the signing. I trust that our management is smart enough not to offer him $11M per-season as Dumars did with Ben Gordon.
              There is. You just dont want to see it.

              That's fine. I didn't want to see it, either...

              Putting down a large chunk of cash for two young talented backups is nice...but in the end, you're still paying for backups.

              And if you don't think either guy is going to get massively overpaid, you don't understand the situation.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


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

                Honestly I could care less at "overspending" at this point for Roy. It's not like we're getting any superstar to come here anyways and fat lot of good having cap space did us this summer every top free agent who was banging the "want to be competitive and go to best situation and get money" sure look like a bunch of hypocrites right now.
                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.


                If the Pacers said "we are bailing on Roy because we want a superstar and we think Nash fits the bill", they'd have him. Dwight has been crying for the Nets for more than a year, and that includes ignoring LA too, so I don't think anyone had a shot at him. He's in love with the idea of Brooklyn which is one reason to not want him anyway, he's not focused on a title as much as a marketing situation.

                The Pacers did the same thing with the other FAs as they've done so far with Roy - they've strongly mulled over what a fair, smart price is in order to be the best they can be within the cap limits.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post


                  We were abe to sincierely talk to the guy that didn't want to be here, the guy New Orleans is matching with a max contract, and an inferior center who can't help our defense the way Roy did. Woo hoo!
                  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?
                  "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                  "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                  "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                  Comment


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

                    Portland can get a 3rd team involved if they want Hibbert that badly. If we lose Roy, we need to replace his value or this fan base will turn on the pacers.

                    edit: above is presumed we match
                    Last edited by LazyDaze; 07-05-2012, 04:26 PM.

                    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?
                      A jersey that says CAP SPACE would be hilarious....and then you can try and buy seats right in front of Herb Simon.
                      I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                      Comment


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

                        Bender was injuries first, performance second. Croshere was never as good or as important as Roy even is now, let alone if he ever improved anymore. A backup PF we thought could be the starter. WE ALREADLY KNOW ROY CAN START BECAUSE HE IS BETTER AND MORE VALUABLE THE CROSHERE EVER WAS, and center is much more valuable spot to have a good player than a PF. So don't waste anyone's time with such a silly comparison.

                        You're continuing to rationalize;
                        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?

                        Cripes, Knicks fans questioned Ewing's value at times.


                        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 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.

                        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.

                          I don't agree. Nash still would've chose the Lakers because of the chance to play alongside Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum and because it's closer to his family. Oh and he also took less money per year than what I heard the Pacers offered him.

                          I heard the Pacers offered him a 10 million dollar a year deal and that he turned the Pacers down because he had more interest in Toronto and NY. That was on Monday, less than 24 hours after they talked to him and before the Lakers got serious about pursuing him.

                          Comment


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

                            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!

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              How do we know that the Simons haven't decreed that they don't want to pay that much for Hibbert and that KP isn't just taking his "stepping orders" from the top?
                              We don't know for certain. However, the David Aldridge piece on NBA.com said Simon authorized his FO to go either way. So if that's true, he's willing to pay to match but not insisting they do it. In other words, he's leaving the basketball decision to the guys he hired to do the job. Just as he has normally done.
                              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                How do we know that the Simons haven't decreed that they don't want to pay that much for Hibbert and that KP isn't just taking his "stepping orders" from the top?
                                I don't think a GM would compromise their resume by taking blame for Simon not wanting to pay Roy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X