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

Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

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

  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Danny has a lot of work ahead of him if he expects to avoid a deep discount. Lance, however, will be cashing in to the tune of 8M-9M...and if he improves further he may be cracking 10M.
    I'll be surprised if Danny gets anything over 7mil and if he does teams are going to offer similar contracts to the ones Bynum and Bogut got were he has to play X amount of games to make so much.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
      We're not getting any discount from any player. We will pay full market value for whatever player(s) we keep.
      I am sure you know that for sure since you probably work for the Pacers and all.

      Comment


      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

        Originally posted by FortyDaysThree View Post
        If he improves his shooting he will be our third best player and should get a 8-12m per year salary.


        Lance would be hitting the lottery if he got 8 mil.


        this board still overrates lance to high heaven and back a million times over.
        Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

        Comment


        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

          We're 2 games in and Lance has had 2 good games and he had some bad games in the preseason. Based off his play last year it's way to early to say his consistency issues are behind him and guess his salary. If he were to continue at this rate (unlikely) then he's gone because we won't be able to afford him. Right now the best measure of his value is his last season played and that would put him under 5 mil IMO. Once we get 20 games in we should have a better idea but in truth he could go any direction between now and the end of the season so his value is up in the air. I agree Granger will have no choice but to take a huge pay cut but his value is even more up in the air then Lance's value. I think if either or both players are getting more then 7 mil then they're gone. Roy will opt out the following year and net 20 mil if he continues to play just the way he is so I don't expect any relief while this core is together.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

            Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post


            Lance would be hitting the lottery if he got 8 mil.


            this board still overrates lance to high heaven and back a million times over.
            Lance is top 2 on the entire team in points, FG%, rebounds AND assists. ASSISTS for goodness sakes...and he's not the PG who has less.

            I appreciate the doubters because I used to be one of them. But it's about time people recognize the young man's talent...because I know other teams are going to see it.

            Comment


            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Lance is top 2 on the entire team in points, FG%, rebounds AND assists. ASSISTS for goodness sakes...and he's not the PG who has less.

              I appreciate the doubters because I used to be one of them. But it's about time people recognize the young man's talent...because I know other teams are going to see it.
              Everything you're saying is based on 2 games while playing extended minutes. If he has 2 bad games now he could be 6th or 7th on the team in some of those areas. 2 games is not a reasonable amount of time to say he's taken the next step.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                Everything you're saying is based on 2 games while playing extended minutes. If he has 2 bad games now he could be 6th or 7th on the team in some of those areas. 2 games is not a reasonable amount of time to say he's taken the next step.
                Summer league wasn't enough evidence. 20 points in the last game of the year wasn't enough evidence. Playing well the first few games as a starter last year wasn't enough evidence. Game 6 against the Knicks last year wasn't enough evidence.

                I can wait. I've been predicting Lance's success since summer league.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Summer league wasn't enough evidence. 20 points in the last game of the year wasn't enough evidence. Playing well the first few games as a starter last year wasn't enough evidence. Game 6 against the Knicks last year wasn't enough evidence.

                  I can wait. I've been predicting Lance's success since summer league.
                  Summer league seriously?

                  Anyways the point is, while there were a few games last season where he put up great stats he was never able to consistently come close to even putting up half as good statistics. Lots of players put up 20+ points games one or twice over the course of an NBA season, doesn't mean they are poised to break out. While Lance has started strong he needs to keep it up for more than 2 games to prove he is able to consistently put up high numbers. Right now the total amount of evidence is extremely small, come back in 10 games when we have a decent sample size.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    I am sure you know that for sure since you probably work for the Pacers and all.
                    No, but I am familiar with the history of Larry Bird and free agents with us.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      No, but I am familiar with the history of Larry Bird and free agents with us.
                      Yes, but nothing is certain. Being on the outside, nothing is completely known. You only know what has been publicly revealed to you, which is a very limited amount. Granted Hibbert and George didn't take a discount, as they got max, we know very little about signing our other players. We don't know what other teams were offering Hill, West, Copeland, Ian, and Watson. All we know is what we signed them for. Like I pointed out, it was commonly accepted by most everyone that Granger could have gotten more on his last contract than he did when he signed it. While we can say it is not likely we will get a discount, we cannot say for sure as an outsider looking in.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Summer league seriously?

                        Anyways the point is, while there were a few games last season where he put up great stats he was never able to consistently come close to even putting up half as good statistics. Lots of players put up 20+ points games one or twice over the course of an NBA season, doesn't mean they are poised to break out. While Lance has started strong he needs to keep it up for more than 2 games to prove he is able to consistently put up high numbers. Right now the total amount of evidence is extremely small, come back in 10 games when we have a decent sample size.
                        What about the fact he had the second highest FG% of the starters last year? What about the fact he had the third best steals of all players on the team last year? What about the fact he had the third best assists on the team last year. A team that contended. All while he was a very young player on a contender?

                        Now he really indeed looks even better.

                        But the statistics...points...numbers are not really the best part. There are things about his game that just exist and cannot be denied. It's his confidence. His toughness. His ability to handle the ball and get to the rack. His ability to feed the post. His ability to drive and dish. His ability to run a fast break. Heck, he's even shown he can get up and throw it down. Then there is his ability to power through a typical guard...and get the And One.

                        Yeh. That's right. The And One is part of this deal. But it's a lot more than that. Lance Stephenson has game. He was born ready and that boy has become a man...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          Summer league wasn't enough evidence. 20 points in the last game of the year wasn't enough evidence. Playing well the first few games as a starter last year wasn't enough evidence. Game 6 against the Knicks last year wasn't enough evidence.

                          I can wait. I've been predicting Lance's success since summer league.
                          No but the 82 game regular season where he averaged 8.8 points and 3 rebounds was. Until he does more for the first 20 games of this season I'll reserve declaring he's taken the next. He should continue to get extended minutes for the next few games though which should help his numbers.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            No but the 82 game regular season where he averaged 8.8 points and 3 rebounds was. Until he does more for the first 20 games of this season I'll reserve declaring he's taken the next. He should continue to get extended minutes for the next few games though which should help his numbers.
                            Well, actually had nearly 4 rebounds and that's ignoring the fact his only double figure rebounds came in the second half of the season. He also scored better than 20 in a game but only during the second half of the season. And like I said he had the second highest FG% of the starters. Higher than Hibbert. Higher than Hill. Higher than Paul George. The point is, the young man is clearly getting better. He made an enormous jump last year. He appears to be doing the same thing this year.

                            One last thing. 8.8 points doesn't sound like much. I suppose it's not an indication of an effective scoring machine. But his game isn't about scoring as much as it's about the complete game. Defense is half the game. Getting other guys involved is huge. Putting pressure on the defense is huge. It's time to forget the Jim O'Brien stats that led to numbers for Murphy Dun and Granger. This team is a contender and the game is more than shooting the ball for big numbers and inefficient FG%...while playing weak D.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Lance is top 2 on the entire team in points, FG%, rebounds AND assists. ASSISTS for goodness sakes...and he's not the PG who has less.

                              I appreciate the doubters because I used to be one of them. But it's about time people recognize the young man's talent...because I know other teams are going to see it.
                              That's why I keep on going back to how important it is for the Pacers to be about $7 mil under the 2014-2015 LT. Every Team that is under the LT will be able to offer him the full MLE. There will be some Teams that are in rebuilding mode and under the Salary Cap enough to offer him more than the full MLE.

                              I guarantee you that some Team will offer him the full MLE.....and worse...I can see some Team over pay him to the tune of $6 to 8 mil a year just because of his potential.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                It is hard to really know if a player took a discount because we don't know what other teams offer players. Obviously George, Hill, and Hibbert didn't take discounts, but I wouldn't really expect younger players to take one. I do remember, though, that it was the common perception that Danny took less on his last contract than he could have gotten. While Danny got something like $12 mil per, similar players were getting like $14 mil per on average.
                                I don't think that Lance will give the Pacers a home town discount......he is paid a pitance when it comes to the level of production that he has provided over the last season ( as well as this season ). He has to ensure that he and his family is paid...so I don't blame him for not giving the Pacers a discount...I want him to get paid.

                                What I am hoping for is that if $$$ is equal...that he chooses the Pacers ( since he is a UFA ) over any other Team. That ( to me ) is the only real advantage that the Pacers have over any other team.....any possible loyalty and respect that Lance may have to Bird.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X