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

Chad Ford Chat

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

  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post

    So what makes you think Lance will get 6 million a year?

    CHECKBOOK DONNIE

    Sorry, I just had to say it.

    Hopefully, Walsh won't be around then. If Walsh gave Green 3 years at 3.5 mil with no team option years, what makes you think Lance won't get 6 mil? Lance is more productive now than Green, and should hopefully grow the rest of this season and next. Is there truly anyone who feels Green is better than Lance at the present time?

    Comment


    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

      Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
      We all said that when George Hill got 8 Mil per... What will you do when Lance outplays that 6 Mil, and then we can't keep him because we just paid West, have to give PG a MAX, overpaid Hibbert and Granger's knee doesn't allow him to play at the level he used too.
      I think the difference between George and Lance is that George Hill was a late first round pick who played in SA for a few years and always showed the ability to be a more than capable starter with Parker, or subbing for an injured Tony Parker. By the time he hit FA, he had 4 good years of solid play--all on successful playoff teams.

      Lance was a second round pick. He's had an above average run for about half of a season, on a below-average offensive team (though he's a part of an elite defensive team as well) He hasn't scored at an uber impressive rate, he hasn't shown that he is a one-on-one ELITE defender (just yet) he's just playing well in what is his first chance to be in a consistent rotation. Prior to this year, most people only knew Lance for being a HS superstar, and giving Bron the choke sign from the bench lol.

      The two examples are quite opposite in my opinion

      Comment


      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        I think the difference between George and Lance is that George Hill was a late first round pick who played in SA for a few years and always showed the ability to be a more than capable starter with Parker, or subbing for an injured Tony Parker. By the time he hit FA, he had 4 good years of solid play--all on successful playoff teams.

        Lance was a second round pick. He's had an above average run for about half of a season, on a below-average offensive team (though he's a part of an elite defensive team as well) He hasn't scored at an uber impressive rate, he hasn't shown that he is a one-on-one ELITE defender (just yet) he's just playing well in what is his first chance to be in a consistent rotation. Prior to this year, most people only knew Lance for being a HS superstar, and giving Bron the choke sign from the bench lol.

        The two examples are quite opposite in my opinion
        I agree with this and I will go just a little bit further.
        Some of you already know this, but Hill is getting to much per (IMO) and Lance is no where near Hill's talent, which ii why Lance shouldn't get more then 4 mil per and that is if he inclines and gets constistant. Personally, if he continues his play and Pacers offers him an extension of 4 years 12 mil., he will take it.
        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

        Comment


        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

          If Danny comes back and these 5 plus Ian, Lance and Green primarily go to the Finals with minimal help from Tyler and DJ then you 100% walk away from the $7m those 2 would save you, keep Orlando and Miles on rookie/minimum deals, resign West and save the "oh no Danny and Paul" discussion till you see if you are headed to another Finals run or not the following year.

          If you put the money out for 8 guys that can go to the Finals then you are done "fixing" things. I think some fans have to get out of rebuild mode from 2 years ago. They resigned Hibbert and Hill because this was the 5 they want to go with. They could be forced to let go of West if the market demands it, but ultimately they need an 8-11m PF on the team so it might as well be West.

          What they don't need is two bigs on the bench both making 4m or a BU PG making 3m and barely contributing.

          Maybe Ian doesn't keep improving and live up to his deal, but if he does then we have a 3 man big rotation with some cheap player to do the emergency work. Ditto at SF with Green or someone making Green's money. Lance dips in at PG/wing as the 6th man.


          When it comes time to give Paul 14M you'll be able to evaluate Danny and perhaps offer 9-10m instead, or look to move him if it's headed that way.


          And if the team just doesn't win games or do well in the playoffs THEN you can think about letting West go and moving Danny. But this group HAS NOT FAILED TO KICK A** YET. Can we not cut bait until after they've underperformed this spring? This means you Chad Ford, non-believer.

          Comment


          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            I don't understand that take at all. I want to keep all 3, but to me it's pretty obvious that from a purely basketball stand point if you're going to cut one loose it is Danny.
            Especially with Roy's offense. You need the post guy. West is slumping partly because of the massive attention he started drawing. You need an inside out game and a solid PnPop game, and West is giving you both.

            As my previous post states, I think you put all your money in the starting 5 and go with Ian, maybe Green, maybe Lance, rookies and scraps. If you decide you need something different than Green then you trade his deal, and if Lance gets paid too much then you walk away. DJ goes, Tyler goes. Then when you aren't playing Roy/West/Ian as your 2 bigs you have a guy like Pendy getting some spot minutes.

            So I'm happily keeping Danny, but if forced to choose then you keep West over DG due to Paul and Roy on offense.

            Comment


            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

              So let me get this straight. A player averages 13pts & 4rebs per game. In the offseason,. those stats get him a 3yr/10.5M contract.

              So that means a player that averages 8pts 3rebs and 3assists will get contract worth 6M per year.


              Yeah, using Green to make your point is a really good piece of evidence......
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                If they went with that after next season when Danny's contract expires (and I'm not saying they should) it wouldn't exactly be a youth movement. Lance and Paul would be 5th year players, Hibbert and Hill would be in their 7th season, and West in his 12th.

                All of them besides Lance would have been starting for at least 3 years (Hill by putting a couple partial years together) and Lance would even have a couple years of major minutes under his belt. It feels like at this point like that lineup would be extremely young and by just looking at their ages they might be, but they would have quite a bit of experience.
                I must've been unclear. Replacing Danny with Lance is a sign they're starting over. Might as well go young across the board. No need to keep West if your starting wings are Paul and Lance. Not much reason to keep Hibbert or Hll either. Blow it up.

                In other words, Hill + Danny + David + Roy is much >>>>>> than Hill + Lance + David + Roy, and will be over the next three years or so. You're replacing an all-star with a sixth-man who is looking like an okay starter in a pinch (and that's a lot of progress from where he was the past two years, I'm not trying to insult him.) Might as well go young.

                I'd rather keep Danny. But I'm not a fan of youth movements. Its cagey veterans like West, Hill, and Granger that win close games, not young high-flying wings.

                Sorry if I was unclear.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  If Danny comes back and these 5 plus Ian, Lance and Green primarily go to the Finals with minimal help from Tyler and DJ then you 100% walk away from the $7m those 2 would save you, keep Orlando and Miles on rookie/minimum deals, resign West and save the "oh no Danny and Paul" discussion till you see if you are headed to another Finals run or not the following year.

                  If you put the money out for 8 guys that can go to the Finals then you are done "fixing" things. I think some fans have to get out of rebuild mode from 2 years ago. They resigned Hibbert and Hill because this was the 5 they want to go with. They could be forced to let go of West if the market demands it, but ultimately they need an 8-11m PF on the team so it might as well be West.

                  What they don't need is two bigs on the bench both making 4m or a BU PG making 3m and barely contributing.

                  Maybe Ian doesn't keep improving and live up to his deal, but if he does then we have a 3 man big rotation with some cheap player to do the emergency work. Ditto at SF with Green or someone making Green's money. Lance dips in at PG/wing as the 6th man.


                  When it comes time to give Paul 14M you'll be able to evaluate Danny and perhaps offer 9-10m instead, or look to move him if it's headed that way.


                  And if the team just doesn't win games or do well in the playoffs THEN you can think about letting West go and moving Danny. But this group HAS NOT FAILED TO KICK A** YET. Can we not cut bait until after they've underperformed this spring? This means you Chad Ford, non-believer.
                  Yeah, I believe that is true. If Lance is getting 30-35 minutes at the as the primary PG/wing back-up*, and it works... We could keep that core group of 6 together
                  Last edited by *astrisk*; 01-10-2013, 04:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    So let me get this straight. A player averages 13pts & 4rebs per game. In the offseason,. those stats get him a 3yr/10.5M contract.

                    So that means a player that averages 8pts 3rebs and 3assists will get contract worth 6M per year.


                    Yeah, using Green to make your point is a really good piece of evidence......
                    No, I was referring to George Hill...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      I don't know about forcing our hand; I could have gotten Roy the same contract Falk did. It basically boiled down to "Hey Roy, don't lose both legs in a freak tractor accident in the next 8 months and someone will give you a max deal."

                      If we would have started from a max contract position, when Roy was still "restricted", I think Falk would have found a way to get it done. He knew the offer from the Pacers was below market. Can't blame the Pacers for trying to get him cheaper. Can't blame Falk for holding out for ... WHAT HE ACTUALLY GOT.

                      Roy was always getting a max contract. Everybody except some people in messageboardland knew that.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                        I know there's very very little chance but... Anyway we offer West an extension before the summer? Actually before some smart *** corrects me. Any chance West signs an extension before this summer?

                        Everyone keeps telling me all the reasons he should stay, so if that's the case why wait. Sign now.
                        If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                        @LetsTalkPacers

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                          Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                          No, I was referring to George Hill...
                          I was referring to Justyn, but you thanked the post anyways so either one of you are free to explain the logic of how 13&4 gets a player 3.5 per and how 8&3&3 works out to 6 per.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            I don't understand that take at all. I want to keep all 3, but to me it's pretty obvious that from a purely basketball stand point if you're going to cut one loose it is Danny.
                            I think its a choice between Danny and Paul.

                            It sure as heck isn't West. We're back to a 0.500 team without him. Who else can score in the fourth quarter. Paul George is making rapid improvment, as is Lance, but I don't think anybody is ready to hand the ball over to them in the fourth quarter.

                            If its a choice between Danny and Paul, I'd at least like to know if Danny can fully come back from this injury and be an all-star caliber player again. If he does, I think you keep the all-star. But I prefer proven performance over potential. I know I'm in the minority around here, but I can live with that.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                              I can't imagine there being any choice at all. I respect most all PD opinions, but anyone who would keep Danny over Paul is not so smart.
                              If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                              @LetsTalkPacers

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford Chat

                                Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
                                We all said that when George Hill got 8 Mil per...

                                No we didn't. Toss the stats out. George Hill had just been promoted to starting PG from a combo guard (which has a way of doing funny things to a player's stats.)

                                $8M for your starting PG seems reasonable.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X