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

Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

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

  • Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

    Excellent write up. Lets enjoy this season, because I think it is either hoping for George to forgo the higher extension (ala Westbrook) and use the stretch provision on Cope/Ian, or lose Scola. Danny is gone, unless he signs for minimum.

    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson

    Numbers from the SportVU data-tracking cameras provided exclusively to Grantland bear this out. Stephenson is dribbling the ball about 125 times per game this season, up from a paltry 65.5 bounces last season, according to the data. His per-game time of possession has jumped from about 90 seconds to nearly three minutes, and he's touching the ball about twice as often. He has assisted on nearly 29 percent of Indiana's baskets while on the floor, roughly equivalent to last season's marks for a bunch of high-quality starting point guards with strong secondary distributors around them and/or score-first duties — Stephen Curry, Ty Lawson, Damian Lillard, Kyrie Irving, and others. Stephenson is also using up more possessions for his own shots, and yet his turnover rate hasn't budged at all.
    Remember: Stephenson has never even sniffed a league-average Player Efficiency Rating, and he barely played over the first two years of his career. This is not James Harden coming off his rookie contract.

  • #2
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

    If PG passes on the raise like Westbrook it could help out with 3 more million salary to give to Lance. PG is a humble guy I wouldn't be surprised if he did it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

      "That's right: Lance Stephenson has slowed down, on purpose, on some fast breaks this season."


      hahaha

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

        Anyone who's smart on the salary cap situation, what are some ways the Pacers could do trades with their bench players, either Scola or Cope to free up cap space? Is that a possibility?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

          ............allowing the other members of Indy's human torture chamber to do their jobs.
          Nice.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

            Remember the last 'star' the Pacers had who took less money than was available to him to help the team? Oh yeah, Granger! I don't know why Westbrook passed on his Max raise, but I don't expect PG to do the same. PG has a finite amount of years to make the money he has the chance to make. Giving part of it back is not really in his best interest. Having said that however, if the Pacers win or even make the Finals, it might be worth the money to PG to keep the core of the team together. Bosh, James and Wade may have changed the way young players look at the money versus wins thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

              Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
              Remember the last 'star' the Pacers had who took less money than was available to him to help the team? Oh yeah, Granger! I don't know why Westbrook passed on his Max raise, but I don't expect PG to do the same. PG has a finite amount of years to make the money he has the chance to make. Giving part of it back is not really in his best interest. Having said that however, if the Pacers win or even make the Finals, it might be worth the money to PG to keep the core of the team together. Bosh, James and Wade may have changed the way young players look at the money versus wins thing.
              He and his agent will have to do some sort of cost-benefit. It's a lot of money to leave on the table though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                If PG passes on the raise like Westbrook it could help out with 3 more million salary to give to Lance. PG is a humble guy I wouldn't be surprised if he did it.
                I think Lowe's wording was off here. Westbrook passed on a raise by negotiating a contract that does not allow for the supermax. Paul G from what we know from media reports, negotiated an extension deal that was above the 25% max, but below the absolute max (30%). I'm pretty sure that contract can't be negotiated downwards now.

                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                Anyone who's smart on the salary cap situation, what are some ways the Pacers could do trades with their bench players, either Scola or Cope to free up cap space? Is that a possibility?
                There are always ways. The question is what it would cost. Scola has a mostly unguaranteed deal next year, so getting his money off the books is relatively easy. Copeland's cap hit can be removed by trading him for an expiring this year, or to a team with cap space next year.

                I think Lowe is understating Stephenson's importance to the Pacers. Myself, I'm convinced he's at minimum the third most important Pacer going forward. Letting him walk next summer shouldn't even be a consideration.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                  Trading copeland to a team under the cap would be the easiest way to move salary, I cant believe people are suggesting dumping Scola!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                    Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                    Trading copeland to a team under the cap would be the easiest way to move salary, I cant believe people are suggesting dumping Scola!
                    I would have to agree with you. It would sure be nice to see what Copeland can actually do with this team and some
                    minutes.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                      Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                      Trading copeland to a team under the cap would be the easiest way to move salary, I cant believe people are suggesting dumping Scola!
                      It's not like anybody WANTS to dump Scola, but right now it's just the easiest way to free up more money for Lance if need be. Giving Copeland away for free sounds like no big deal, but trades are never easy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        I think Lowe's wording was off here. Westbrook passed on a raise by negotiating a contract that does not allow for the supermax. Paul G from what we know from media reports, negotiated an extension deal that was above the 25% max, but below the absolute max (30%). I'm pretty sure that contract can't be negotiated downwards now.
                        That's how I understand it too. If George makes 1 of the All-NBA teams, he's getting the 30% max. And it can't be negotiated downward now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                          Originally posted by shags View Post
                          That's how I understand it too. If George makes 1 of the All-NBA teams, he's getting the 30% max. And it can't be negotiated downward now.
                          The only thing we know for certain is he got over 25%, we won't know how much over until the contract "leaks" next year.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                            Can you only use the stretch provision once per season?

                            If not, the Pacers could theoretically waive both Copeland and Mahinmi under that provision, which would make the cap hit for their contracts be spread over 3 years.

                            $2.3mil per season instead of $7mil. That would give us an extra ~$4.7mil to work with.

                            Keep Scola on the books for his full $4.9 million, and you're up to just about $70 million with a couple of spots left to fill. (Both scenarios assume the Pacers keep Donald Sloan and Orlando Johnson on minimum-level deals.) In related news, the league expects the luxury tax line for 2014-15 to come in around $75.7 million.
                            That would get us down to $65.3mil for 9 players. If Lance got ~8mil per year then you would have to fill out the roster with vet min guys, but I think you could get it done.

                            If you only use the stretch provision on one of them, hopefully you can find a taker for a trade for the other one without taking back any salary.

                            It seems like it would be do-able if Lance is attainable in the 7-10mil range. Given how much Larry like Lance, I think he'll find a way to make it happen unless Lance gets a truly crazy offer.
                            Last edited by skyfire; 11-14-2013, 08:20 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance's past, present, and future.

                              A George Hill trade sounds more and more like it could be in play.

                              I'd rather have C.J. playing alongside Lance and PG then having half the bench making 750,000 a year.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X