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 just don't buy this theory that there's a viable plan B just waiting to be hatched if/when we let Roy walk. I'll believe that if/when I see it, and I have serious doubts I will. Losing Brad Miller was one thing, but losing a guy better than Brad and with no JO at the PF spot? Ugly.

    This will NOT cripple our finances. West has ONE YEAR LEFT, Danny Granger TWO YEARS. THERE'S YOUR FREAKING FLEXIBILITY IF YOU JUST SIMPLY MUST HAVE IT.

    If you're gonna stay cheap, just let Granger walk in Summer 2014. Small forwards are a DIME A DOZEN in comparison to centers. It's an easy choice. If we simply can't swallow paying Roy AND Danny big money more than 2 years, YOU LET DANNY GO.

    And if you can't do it for even ONE YEAR... TRADE DANNY NOW.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
      If we aren't going to re-sign Roy, it's a tell-tale sign that we aren't committed to being the best we can be, and that would be the worst of all possible situations... this is our climax. If we give up our most important player and All-Star than we aren't going anywhere.

      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Yep I agree that Roy was supposed to dominate in the playoffs and he didn't do that, he actually got destroyed by big baby and couldn't do anything against Miami's scrubs.

        Just imagine how badly he would have been destroyed by a healthy Howard.....

        Comment


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

          I mean, it's not only like I will be sad and lose interest in the Pacers... I will be super freaking pissed and no longer support them. Why in the holy hell would we not re-sign Roy if it, by itself, wouldn't even put us over the cap?

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Just imagine how badly he would have been destroyed by a healthy Howard.....
            Or a healthy Bosh.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


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

              Everyone says that Donnie loves to overpay his FA's, so what does that tell us if we don't match?

              Comment


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

                Also, Roy outperformed Big Baby in the playoffs, and did average against Miami. Take him away and we don't win anything.

                We gave Glen Davis jumpshots all day long. Give any player with a decent midrange jumpshot the kind of looks we gave him and he would have put up numbers. Roy dominated Glen Davis defensively.

                Comment


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

                  Just because I'm curious: Those of you saying Roy is not worth a max contract because he is not a dominant player--what are your contingency plans?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                    Also, Roy outperformed Big Baby in the playoffs, and did average against Miami. Take him away and we don't win anything.

                    We gave Glen Davis jumpshots all day long. Give any player with a decent midrange jumpshot the kind of looks we gave him and he would have put up numbers. Roy dominated Glen Davis defensively.
                    da fuq am i reading? BBD tore us a new one in the playoffs
                    Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Just because I'm curious: Those of you saying Roy is not worth a max contract because he is not a dominant player--what are your contingency plans?
                      Miles Plumblee
                      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


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

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Everyone says that Donnie loves to overpay his FA's, so what does that tell us if we don't match?
                        That the Mayans were right.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                          da fuq am i reading? BBD tore us a new one in the playoffs
                          He scored on us, but those were mostly jumpers....that Roy gave him. Every time BBD took it to the paint, Roy swatted that **** to the Club Level. As games wore on, BBD's legs got heavy and couldn't hit any. That was the gameplan from game 1, and it worked. We did win in 5 games...

                          Comment


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

                            http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/ore...medium=twitter

                            Canzano: Good theater wrapped up in Blazers' pursuit of Roy Hibbert

                            No secret that Paul Allen has cycled through four full-time general managers since Bob Whitsitt left. With Neil Olshey, he's on his sixth basketball marriage in a decade. And with all that blood in the water, maybe the big surprise is that it's taken this long to run into one of them at an NBA free-agent cocktail party.

                            On one side of the room, here's Allen, the billionaire who went so cold on Kevin Pritchard in 2010 that he eventually just stopped talking with him, and then, sitting with him at Trail Blazers home games. On the other side of the room, pretending not to notice Allen, is Pritchard.

                            I won't ever forget the sight of Pritchard, sitting across the arena from Allen in the final days, exiled from the cozy courtside seats. He was humiliated. The Allen-Pritchard break-up culminated on that ugly day in 2010 in which Pritchard started the day as the general manager and ended it unemployed an hour before the draft. Allen now claims Pritchard quit, and Pritchard still maintains Allen fired him.

                            A year after he was let go, Pritchard said, "I still don't know what I did wrong."

                            So begins the most fascinating free-agent moratorium period in Blazers history. Great theater, at least. Because the Blazers reportedly reached a four-year, $58 million verbal agreement with restricted free agent Roy Hibbert over the weekend. It's a big, bold play. And I love that the Blazers are going to the mattresses, trying to land the premier center available in free agency. But we're not only about to witness a competitive and creative negotiation for the 7-foot-2 center, but also, a great Allen-Pritchard subplot.

                            Pritchard was promoted to general manager in Indiana after the departure of Larry Bird last week. It took Pritchard two years to shake the stigma of being canned by Allen, gather himself professionally, and get another GM job. In that period, he's scouted, and done so much soul searching that he grabbed a laptop and started making notes and writing a book on management techniques.

                            The Blazers will have competition for Hibbert. Houston will reportedly make a maximum-contract offer, too. But because Hibbert is a restricted free agent, the Pacers have the right to match any offer. Beginning July11, the Blazers can sign a formal offer sheet, and at that time, Indiana will have to make a decision.

                            Do nothing, and let Hibbert sign with another team. Or match the offer and crush the Blazers' biggest free-agent play since "Trader Bob" left.

                            You figure with Whitsitt, John Nash, Steve Patterson, Pritchard and Rich Cho floating around out there, disgruntled, that Allen's basketball operation would eventually walk into a party that had one of them leaning against a wall muttering at his sight. On draft day, I shook my head at the possibility that Charlotte, Cho's new employer, might be dangling the No.2 pick as trade bait, and that the Blazers might think about cutting a deal with Cho to select Bradley Beal.

                            Too soon to play nice, right?

                            So begins some great theater. Because Portland has entered the Hibbert Sweepstakes. Meanwhile, Pritchard has Pacers president Donnie Walsh over his shoulder, and in Indiana there's a strange dynamic with low revenues. Pritchard hasn't had to operate as a GM without the Vulcan Inc. checkbook available to him.

                            Said one NBA executive on the Allen-Pritchard rift and the Hibbert development: "Paul was really harsh on Kevin, and he knows Kevin hates him. Kevin had to spend a year selling the Pacers that he wasn't a bad guy based on what they'd heard in Portland."

                            Allen doesn't feel like a vindictive ex in this situation. It's not likely that he's chasing Hibbert just to take a bite out of Pritchard. But those around the league watching the early part of free agency are buying into two prevailing theories on Portland-Hibbert flirtation.

                            Either the Blazers are:

                            A) Serious about trying to win next season and want Hibbert as their center; or B) Trying to drive Hibbert's value higher in a strategic move, much like Minnesota could be doing by offering Nicolas Batum $11 million. Whatever the case, Hibbert and his agent, David Falk, end up the big beneficiaries. And Allen and Pritchard end up head to head.

                            Falk is tight with Walsh in Indiana. So I don't expect the negotiation would go sideways or turn nasty. But what we have here is a good, cordial battle over Hibbert that will have a clear winner and loser. It's the first opportunity for Allen and Pritchard to compete over something that matters.

                            If you're Pritchard, here's your first chance to fend off the billionaire who jilted you in a setting where you feel you have better footing and more expertise. If you're Allen, and you want Hibbert, you're going to have to go through a guy you once turned your back on to get him.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                              da fuq am i reading? BBD tore us a new one in the playoffs


                              He tore us a new one?

                              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...scoring-in-it/

                              Glen Davis scored 88 points on 95 shots, not that amazing at all. 19 and 9 with no one guarding you? Please. He was good because no one was guarding him, and that was the defensive game plan, hence the reason we won in five games.

                              I can tell that I'm not in favor here, but statistics don't tell anything in this situation. Davis was better than expected, and he's a good player, but Roy got the best of him.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                                Wells just said on WTHR that he doesn't think the Pacers will match.
                                This kills the franchise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X