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

What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

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

  • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    And that's another problem. Our back up offense shouldn't be focused around a starter. We need a backup for Lance who can come off the bench and run the offense while he gets a quarter off. In those b2b games, having a guy like Stuckey who can come off and run the offense or a guy like Nick Young, who can drop 17 in a hurry....means PG and or Lance get to rest up for a 4th quarter run to try and win the game. Lance plays too many minutes already. Because our back up 2 guard spot is empty.
    You keep bringing up that we have this need of a trade. We do not need a trade period. We have those players now but we're not using them. Anyone you've ever brought up still wouldn't see the court or get the shot opportunities to make an impact so why trade? Vogel would be even less likely to use a new player then the players we have now. If we want a distributor we have it, if we want bench scoring we have. Granger, Watson and Scola are far better options then anyone we'd ever trade for, if Vogel wanted more from our bench he'd be getting it now.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      I agree, I don't like what Lance does with the second unit as much as I do with the first unit. Both Lance and Paul would benefit from playing a few more minutes but if we pulled 5 minutes from Lance it needs to be the time he spends with the second unit. It all comes down to how much Vogel chooses to coach him though.
      Lance + Granger has been very effect combination so far. So I am not so sure that it should come from his bench time. I just think Vogel needs to not give him so much freedom with the second unit. There is a sweet spot in the balance between freedom and structure for Lance, and with the bench it can often go too far into freedom. This is a big reason why Granger needs to be more assertive with the bench, forcing the bench to run through Granger more and creating a more structured offense for Lance to play within.

      Comment


      • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

        Originally posted by able View Post
        you are correct i thought he started AS last year as well, but lets face it, how big is the chance him NOT making all nba?
        The only way it doesn't happen is if Melo suddenly starts averaging 30ppg and the Knicks finish with 50+ wins.

        Comment


        • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          The only way it doesn't happen is if Melo suddenly starts averaging 30ppg and the Knicks finish with 50+ wins.
          You think in that case he would not make any of the 3??
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

            Originally posted by able View Post
            You think in that case he would not make any of the 3??
            At that point you would have Paul competing with LeBron, Durant, and Melo for the SF spot. I'm wouldn't say he wouldn't get in, but it would be much more difficult.

            Comment


            • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

              James & Durant were the 2 forwards in the ALL NBA 1st team last year, and Anrthony and Griffin in the 2nd PG was in 3rd, I would be astonished if he did not make at least 2nd team all NBA
              Funny enough Duncan was C in the 1st, not bad for a power forward, oh wait other thread

              would be amazed also if Roy was not in one of them
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


              • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                For those that think we can just add pieces to Lance, Paul and Roy.....

                If we were to pay Lance 12 mil, and figure that Roy will opt out and receive another Max extension (which is what will happen--esp after he wins DPOY this year) then you're going to be looking at $71.5 mil on the books for the 2015-16 season...with 6 players (not counting S.Hill, or other future rookies right now). Obviously we'd do some trades (good bye G.Hill) in order to make some room on the roster and field 13-14 players. But D.West's contract expires after that season, while Paul is receiving bumps of about 1.2 million every season.

                In order for our team to maintain the identity that's made us successful once D.West is gone, we are going to need another more-than-adequate PF who can score, and rebound at an above average rate. If we do not, then our team isn't nearly as effective, and we lose the traits that have been our equalizer against the "superstar teams"...our size strength, and toughness. But when you pay Lance $12 mil or more, it's going to make it tough to pay ANYBODY else more than a few million a year, because we will already be paying big money to Roy and Paul.

                It's not about looking at next season's financial situation; it's about looking at the books for the two to three seasons after that.

                Comment


                • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  yes there is an option on Scola, not picking it up is not an option, no chance you get someone of his caliber in for that kind of money.
                  and no, Copeland is not even close, why do you think he only plays garbage time, because he's so good he's outplaying the old Argentinian fox?
                  A LOT harder to replace Lance than Scola. If it means keeping Lance we should let Scola walk IMO.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    At that point you would have Paul competing with LeBron, Durant, and Melo for the SF spot. I'm wouldn't say he wouldn't get in, but it would be much more difficult.
                    There is no SF position on the All-NBA teams. There are 2 forward positions for the 1st team, 2 forward positions for the 2nd team, and 2 forward positions for the 3rd team.

                    The only way that Paul doesn't get one of those spots would be an injury forcing him to miss most or all of the rest of the season, and nobody wants to see that happen. When he made the 3rd team last year, it basically sealed him getting the Rose Rule bump.
                    Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 01-27-2014, 12:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                      Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                      A LOT harder to replace Lance than Scola. If it means keeping Lance we should let Scola walk IMO.
                      For the 12 million people want to pay him i can easily replace him, I can not replace Scola with a near likeness for under 5 million.

                      this replacement crap fails badly on real numbers, paying Lance max or near max nunbers makes you need to replace him with someone that costs the same, not the 1 million he costs now, and for 12 - 15 million we can pretty assuredly buy an All star or so.

                      and then ofcourse see half our team fall by the wayside because we would land in LT land and lose money hand over hand.
                      (as i said elsewhere this 12 -15 million doubles in real money)
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


                      • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                        The only way Paul George fails to make an All-NBA team this year is if he gets hurt.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                          Originally posted by able View Post
                          James & Durant were the 2 forwards in the ALL NBA 1st team last year, and Anrthony and Griffin in the 2nd PG was in 3rd, I would be astonished if he did not make at least 2nd team all NBA
                          Funny enough Duncan was C in the 1st, not bad for a power forward, oh wait other thread

                          would be amazed also if Roy was not in one of them
                          Shows how much I pay attention to All-NBA.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                            same as george hill....no more...
                            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                            Comment


                            • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                              Originally posted by able View Post
                              For the 12 million people want to pay him i can easily replace him, I can not replace Scola with a near likeness for under 5 million.

                              this replacement crap fails badly on real numbers, paying Lance max or near max nunbers makes you need to replace him with someone that costs the same, not the 1 million he costs now, and for 12 - 15 million we can pretty assuredly buy an All star or so.
                              As has been pointed out before, we wont have $12M to replace Lance. We'll have pocket change. Barring a major lucky break, our team will be downgraded significantly all over a disagreement of $2-3M -- the same amount of money our end-of-the-bench towel-waver is making.

                              Does that seem smart to you? It doesn't to me.

                              Originally posted by able View Post
                              and then ofcourse see half our team fall by the wayside because we would land in LT land and lose money hand over hand.
                              (as i said elsewhere this 12 -15 million doubles in real money)
                              If money is going to lead to the breakup of our current team, I'd make keeping PG, Roy, and Lance -- our young core -- top priority and work out the rest as we go. You don't break up a trio of young, talented All-Stars to keep an aging PF on your bench.

                              Also, remember, folks: This isn't your money that's being spent. If our owners feel going into the luxury tax is worth it to keep a championship-caliber together, that's their prerogative, not yours. From the way some of you go on about the luxury tax and player salaries (pocket change to billionaires), you'd think it was coming out of your own pockets.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                                Also, remember, folks: This isn't your money that's being spent. If our owners feel going into the luxury tax is worth it to keep a championship-caliber together, that's their prerogative, not yours. From the way some of you go on about the luxury tax and player salaries (pocket change to billionaires), you'd think it was coming out of your own pockets.
                                Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression the city of Indianapolis is paying 10 Million a year via the CIB agreement to keep the Pacers here. Technically that is taxpayer money but again I may be mistaken.

                                If the above is correct then I do not see the city of Indy paying 10 Million to let the Pacers go over the LT.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X