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

@EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

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

  • #76
    Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

    Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
    If we win a championship, Lance will not be the biggest reason why.
    I'm somewhat disagreeing with you. I'm not saying that Lance will be the main reason if/when we win a championship....but I feel like our starting lineup is like Voltron, we need all five guys to beat the opposition. And I feel if you take any of these guys (whether it be Hill, Lance, West) away, against the great teams, we'll not win a playoff series.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

      Originally posted by sapposnap View Post
      Plus hayward has a bigger ceiling than lance.
      I almost fell out of my chair. Let's be abundantly clear, Lance's #1 ability is scoring, and so far he hasn't even displayed 1/2 of that ability while playing in the NBA. The fact that he can instill fear on a fast break like few in the league, use uncanny vision and natural feel to distribute the ball, defend his man one-on-one, and rebound....and do all this at a pretty high level says volumes when all of those things are secondary to his primary ability, scoring.

      Additionally, he physically has no shortcomings as a guard in the NBA. So many other players are a compromise of height, weight, length or quickness. Lance has every one of those check'd off and long term it pays off as he'll be able to physically endure the NBA season better than most. While it's impossible to predict injuries, I'd say Lance is going to be less injury prone than say a Steph Curry or obviously a Derrick Rose. 10+ million dollar a year talent doesn't do much good when it's on IR.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

        Originally posted by Magic P View Post
        Stop looking at stats all the time, Chalmers gets in the lane at will on Hill which causes the defense to have to scramble. By the way if it wasn't for Hibbert Chalmers would destroy Hill in all facets.
        Is Chalmers really doing enough damage to warrant use of the word "destroy"? Seems like an awfully strong term to use.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

          This is pretty straight forward.....assume the worst case scenario as to what offer that Lance can get.....an offer starting at $11 mil and make preperations to make such an offer without going over the LT ( trade Copeland ).

          Can someone run the #s for the MAX contract that the Pacers can offer a Free Agent assuming that Lance decides to go somewhere else cuz he gets a bigger contract offer? Is it the full MLE at $5.38 mil a year?

          Also....what would the Starting Salary for the 2014-2015 season be for a 5 year / $45 mil contract look like with the raise that ONLY the Pacers can offer? Would it be a Starting of $8 mil in 2014-2015?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            Is Chalmers really doing enough damage to warrant use of the word "destroy"? Seems like an awfully strong term to use.
            Hill can't guard him so yeah I think that is the appropriate term. He would utterly destroy Hill if Hibbert wasn't a monster protecting the basket.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

              Originally posted by Magic P View Post
              Hill can't guard him so yeah I think that is the appropriate term. He would utterly destroy Hill if Hibbert wasn't a monster protecting the basket.
              JMHO.....but saying that GH would be destroyed by Chalmers ( pretty much putting Chalmers at a completely different Tier as a Player above GH ) is a dis-service to GH. If GH would be destroyed by Chalmers if Hibbert wasn't protecting the paint.....why can't the same be said of Chalmers if he didn't have the best Player in the League, Wade and Tag Along on his Team to draw the offense?

              Chalmers is a solid PG for the role that the Heat has him fill ( basically a Guard that doesn't handle the ball as much and role on the Team is to wait for the 3pt shot ). At most...one could say that both are comprable Players....but let's not make Chalmers into something that he isn't.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                Stop looking at stats all the time, Chalmers gets in the lane at will on Hill which causes the defense to have to scramble. By the way if it wasn't for Hibbert Chalmers would destroy Hill in all facets.
                Our defense is designed to allow Chalmers to get in the lane. Guess what happens when Chalmers gets funneled on Hibbert? It results in a missed shot or a turnover.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                  Tried to post the stats for JRSmith and Tyreke from last year compared to Lance this year. The biggest difference, Lance was well behind in points and the defensive stats. He was ahead in rebounding, not as much as you might think, and assists. If you look at PER, he had the lowest number as well.

                  My takeaway: Lance is not Tyreke. Comparing Lance's best year to Tyreke's worst year, they look pretty close. But Tyreke has had four good years, while Lance is halfway through his first. My feeling is that he will get closer to JR's contract than Tyreke's. To say that he deserves more than Tyreke is off-base in my opinion. They are close to the same age, and Tyreke has been doing his thing for much longer. I would say 3 years 24 million (7.5, 8, 8.5)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                    I still don't see how Lance gets that much more than Affalo, who's a 20pt/gm scorer. Other stats are nice, but this is a scoring league still and he avg 13pt/gm.
                    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                      I still don't see how Lance gets that much more than Affalo, who's a 20pt/gm scorer. Other stats are nice, but this is a scoring league still and he avg 13pt/gm.
                      Afflalo wasn't a 20pt/gm scorer when he signed that contract.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                        Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                        I still don't see how Lance gets that much more than Affalo, who's a 20pt/gm scorer. Other stats are nice, but this is a scoring league still and he avg 13pt/gm.
                        He's a 20 point scorer now, but he wasn't when he signed his deal. Afflalo was coming off his age 25 season with averages of 33.7 minutes, 12.6 points, 3.6 rebounds, 2.4 assists, and 1 turnover. His TS% was excellent that year at .620, so he was highly efficient. His usage rate was 14.8%.

                        Lance will be coming off his age 23 season with averages of 35.2 minutes, 13.4 points, 6.5 rebounds, 5.1 assists, and 2.6 turnovers. His TS% is .563 so quite a bit less efficient, but on a usage rate of 18.9%.

                        WS/48 has Lance's season with .156 while Afflalo had .148 before his free agency year.

                        Lance will have many more playoff minutes to point to and is unrestricted while Afflalo was restricted. And the salary cap will also be higher than it was when Afflalo signed his deal. It's always hard to compare two players like that though where one person puts up greater stats and the other one was a super efficient role player.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                          I like Lance fine, but any more than $6 million and we have to let this kid walk. It'd make much more sense to give Danny Granger at least $9 million a year, even if it takes us over the cap, because he is the undisputed soul of this team. #Serious

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                            Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                            I like Lance fine, but any more than $6 million and we have to let this kid walk. It'd make much more sense to give Danny Granger at least $9 million a year, even if it takes us over the cap, because he is the undisputed soul of this team. #Serious


                            Now we'll have to deal with it being taken seriously.

                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                              Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the protocol around here to use green to point out sarcasm ??

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: @EyeOnBasketball: Report: Lance Stephenson could make up to $9 million as a free agent this summer

                                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                                I like Lance fine, but any more than $6 million and we have to let this kid walk. It'd make much more sense to give Danny Granger at least $9 million a year, even if it takes us over the cap, because he is the undisputed soul of this team. #Serious
                                Here you go.


                                Edit: Funny thing is, both able and vnzla81 thanked that post.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X