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

  • #61
    Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

    The Spurs have done a great job of keeping their 3 core players together while maintaining financial flexibility to have impact players around those 3. I think we could do the same if we are able to sign Lance at anything below $11 mil.
    Recently, sure. But just a few years ago, they were in the LT. They were 73M+ in the 11-12 season, with Duncan getting 21M, Tony 12.5M, and Manu at 13M. They were at 78M in 09-10 paying Tim 21M, Tony 12.6M, Manu 11M, and Richard Jefferson 14M.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I am not sure if Shamsports #s take into account how much of a raise in his salary will be WHEN he makes the ASG. I think that these #s are the Baseline Salary that he will get without making the ASG.
      I thought PG didn't take that provision in his contract?

      EDIT: Ah, you're right.

      Year
      27% Max Salary
      30% Max Salary
      IND Savings
      2014-15 $15,792,610 $17,547,345 $1,754,734
      2015-16 $16,977,056 $18,863,396 $1,886,340
      2016-17 $18,161,502 $20,179,446 $2,017,945
      2017-18 $19,345,947 $21,495,497 $2,149,550
      2018-19* $20,530,393 $22,811,548 $2,281,155
      Total $90,807,509 $100,897,232 $10,089,723
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...than-expected/

      Damn.
      Last edited by Since86; 01-24-2014, 04:59 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I am not sure if Shamsports #s take into account how much of a raise in his salary will be WHEN he makes the ASG. I think that these #s are the Baseline Salary that he will get without making the ASG.
        Making the ASG as a starter once doesn't kick in the Rose Rule. If he is named to a second All-NBA team, that will do it.
        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


        • #64
          Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I thought PG didn't take that provision in his contract?

          EDIT: Ah, you're right.


          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...than-expected/

          Damn.
          So....after making the ASG....is he going to have the 27% or 30% MAX Salary?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

            27%. He didn't take the full 30%.

            And him getting bumped up that much over shamsports starts throwing all the math I've done pretty lower by about 2M than what it really should be.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post

              My question: Are you guys willing to get rid of Scola this summer to make the $ work, if that's what it takes?

              ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!

              I'm not interested in going backwards to the days of Hansbrough and Lou. Lance needs to understand he can't put the Pacers in finanical jeopardy and expect to stay a Pacer. His play benefits from the other players on this team. He's not picking up this team and carrying it to success by himself. FAR from it. What he and his agent needs to understand is Granger is a competent replacement if Lance and his agent want ridiculous money. They don't have the Pacers over a barrell. Lance is just one cog in the wheel, and by far not the most important cog either.

              I have always felt the Pacers overpaid Hill at 8 mil a year. The 8 mil Hill gets is the price range where Lance should be. If he substantially wants more and is not interested in winning a championship with the Pacers, then Bird needs to says thanks, we wish you well, and shut the door behind you when you leave. AND this comes from someone who loves watching Lance play! I catch myself at times during the game just concentracting on watching Lance play, but he's just a cog in the wheel. One of many! JMOAA

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                I voted up to 14 mil. Essentially I asked myself the following questions:
                1.) How important is Lance to this team
                - Very important. Possibly second most important player. On the best team in the country, at the age of 23, he is second in minutes per game, 1st in field goal percentage, 2nd in rebounds, 1st in assists, and 2nd in points.
                2.) What is his future ceiling?
                - Very high. He is only 23 and playing his second year of major minutes. His growth has been nothing short of astounding over the last two years. Furthermore, he is beginning to show a more all around game and a propensity to shine on the biggest stage. He has a fairly large chance to be an all-star for years to come.
                3.) Other considerations?
                - There are still some worries in regards to temperament both on and off the court which decrease value. His ability to play a couple different positions increases value. His ability to defend also increases value. Only 23 years old. Seems to have good chemistry with current long-contract players.

                That was really all I needed. Pay him. Do whatever it takes to make sure he is here again next year.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Yes because Scola is only going to get slower and even more un-athletic. I like Scola a great deal and would have loved to have him on this team for a multi-year deal several years ago. Lance makes the second unit go, and he is young. There are plenty of bigs out there who could be had for cheaper deals who can also hit the pick and pop mid range. We are paying Scola around 6 million this year? Heck I'd imagine that Copeland will come in and play the back up 4 spot next year and give us the same production.

                  I'd like to see the Pacers get a bit younger or more athletic at the back up 4 spot.


                  Scola is slow, but he's an intelligent savy player who knows how to score. He can shoot a mid-range jumper, and he can score in the paint. He can rebs well, brings veteran leadership, and has been successful player at all levels of BB too. I've seen nothing of Copeland that makes me feel he can replace Scola. Copeland is basically a 3 pt shooting specialist. The Pacers can find 3pt shooters for a dime a dozen. You don't find Luis Scola type players for a dime a dozen.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                    Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                    I wouldn't like it but I would be willing to. I don't think Scola has a long-term place on the team. His veteran savvy and scoring are nice, but not at the cost of a major contributor like Lance.

                    Scola is replaceable.

                    WITH WHO??

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                      I basically agree with you on this. I could see 9 mil so I voted for 8-10. If we get beyond 10 mil I think it's almost impossible to keep Hibbert when he opts out the following year.
                      This may be the minority opinion but anyone who read Larry Birds interview just a few weeks ago knows that Larry is also of this opinion. I keep pointing this out because people just seem to ignore it. Larry will not pay whatever it takes.

                      http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/12/...nce-stephenson
                      "We want to keep him and he wants to be here. This is the best environment for him. We will make him a great offer, an offer that I think is very fair. If you look at our books, how does anyone know what's going to happen in the summer. How do they know we're not going to make trades or have more money or less money. We will try to sign Lance, but I don't worry about it. If Lance is not here, we'll get somebody else."


                      Maybe the thread should be about are you willing to pay Lance and then lose Hibbert b/c you paid Lance BIG BUCKS? There is NO doubt who is more important to the Pacers when it comes to Hibbert or Lance. Bird knows which is the most important, and his name isn't Lance Stephenson. Hibbert is the anchor to the Pacers "D", not Lance and his flashy play.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!

                        Lance needs to understand he can't put the Pacers in finanical jeopardy and expect to stay a Pacer. His play benefits from the other players on this team. He's not picking up this team and carrying it to success by himself. FAR from it. What he and his agent needs to understand is Granger is a competent replacement if Lance and his agent want ridiculous money. They don't have the Pacers over a barrell. Lance is just one cog in the wheel, and by far not the most important cog either.
                        Lance and his agent ultimately don't care about the Pacers. They're going to act in their best interests. For the production Lance has provided the last two seasons, the Pacers have been getting him for an absolute steal. Everyone knows that and you better believe that his agent is going to try to milk that at the negotiating table with the Pacers. There are teams with a lot of cap space this off season. He'll get signed by someone.

                        I'm not one of those people that think we should keep Lance at all costs. If he ends up getting over $12 million a year, more power to him, but I say let him walk. But anything less than that and I say bye-bye to Scola.

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        WITH WHO??
                        Another backup PF? They're everywhere. Slow-footed PF's who can hit a mid-range jumper are not that hard to find. I know Scola also brings intangibles and savvy that others don't, but not enough to warrant keeping him over Lance. How many good years does Scola have left? 3 at most? Lance has at least another 7 or 8.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          WITH WHO??
                          Same question applies to letting Lance walk. Who replaces what he brings?
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                            I wouldn't like it but I would be willing to. I don't think Scola has a long-term place on the team. His veteran savvy and scoring are nice, but not at the cost of a major contributor like Lance. Scola is replaceable.
                            You do realize Scola is getting paid 10mil this year and 11mil next year. How do you replace that with some scrub. Also Bird gave up Green, Plumlee and a 1st for him because of the great value in Scola, you don't throw that away. There are other options to be made.
                            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              WITH WHO??
                              he is easier replaced than Lance.

                              I'm not sure what I would be comfortable with. Probably $10 million. I think the FO will figure it out. And I think if we are in the Finals, Herb will reconsider that whole, no going into the LT.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                CJ and Scola are both under contract next year. There's no law that we have to dump them to keep Lance. It's just a question of how much our franchise values winning vs. saving money.

                                Granger has been a solid backup wing, but he's hardly worth getting in the way of re-signing Lance.

                                Scola and Granger's best years are long behind them. Lance is just getting started. You don't let a couple of old quarters in their 30's get in the way of re-signing your shinny new silver dollar.


                                What if the money you have to pay Lance impedes being able to re-sign Hibbert? Is Lance re-signing worth losing Hibbert?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X