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

  • #31
    Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I cannot accept losing Lance just so we can have enough $$$ to fill out the bench with a Dhantay Jones, Earl Watson, Gerald Green, Ian Mahinmi, or Chris Copeland.
    The question might end up being would you lose Lance to keep Danny, Ian, Luis AND CJ? Not OR but instead AND, as in multiple players or even most of the second unit.

    Comment


    • #32
      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?
      33-year-old, declining minor part of our team's success vs. 23-year-old, improving major part of our team's success.

      Seems like a no-brainer to me.

      I'd also be willing to get rid of both Scola and Granger if it means keeping Lance. Let's face it, this team has proven they're more than fine without Danny. I'm not sure we could say the same without Lance. Add in the age disparity and Danny's injuries, and again, it becomes a no-brainer, at least to me.

      In short: Do whatever it takes to keep the trio of PG, Roy, and Lance intact. That's a young, championship-caliber trio, and we can't let it slip away.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Pacers have already proven that their core PG/Lance/GHill/West/Roy with a crappy bench can push the eventual champs to 7 games and then have the best record in the NBA. Why would the Pacers want to break that up, to keep a bench unit? I love Danny, I thought he'd be the better option to start if he had been healthy, I hope the Pacers find some way to hang on to him, but you invest more in the 23y/o than you do the 30+ y/o, especially when you've proven you can win with the 23y/o and without the 30+y/o.
        "have the best record in the NBA" comes with a bench including Danny and Scola. Not sure that's the same "crappy bench" as last year.
        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


        • #34
          Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          "have the best record in the NBA" comes with a bench including Danny and Scola. Not sure that's the same "crappy bench" as last year.
          They had the best record in the NBA before Danny returned. I agree that Scola is a part of it, but they had established themselves as the best record while Scola was still struggling early in the year.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
            These types of questions are what really needs to be asked. And we keep re-hashing money questions about the possibilities over and over again.

            Perhaps it would be a good idea to sticky a chart that shows next year's salaries of the starters under contract and columns for different projections for Lance, with salaries for the remaining players for next season also listed so folks can then visualize the impact of Lance's salary on the total.

            Then, folks can also see how much salary and which players might be eliminated to remain under the luxury Tashkent threshold.
            It's not a chart but I posted this in the Pacers evaluation thread.

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            But it's only for one year, then you get cap relief.

            Scola/Copeland/OJ fall off the books. Solo will have a team option. They'd have $10-15M+ to get a bench and fill out the lineup gaps. Not the greatest, but not unworkable, especially with such a strong starting lineup.

            Say Lance gets 11M for that year, you're looking at just south of $66M total. The LT cap for14-15 season is projected to be around $75M, so the LT threshold for 15-16 would probably be around $78M. You'd have $12M to get you 7 players. You can fill your end of the bench guys, say 3 of them, at less than $1M but we'll just keep it even 1M. So you'd have about $9M left with at least 4 spots to fill. It's not the best, but it's certainly feasible.
            The numbers are coming from Shamsports.
            http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Outside of Green, none of those guys were expected to be a 6th man type of player that was going to contribute on a contending team. (and Green is showing what he can do when he's within a system that fits his talent)

              If we spend $14 mil on Lance, then you're going to be seeing players worse than Jones, Green and Mahinmi as the 6th and 7th man coming off the bench.

              Plus $14 million on a guard who's not a superstar player is A LOT of money to one guy. Every player has a limit as to what they should be paid, Lance is no different.
              Only one person so far has said they'd be willing to go upwards of 14M and only one other upwards of 12M.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                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."
                They should be able to pay Roy similiar money, and get a cheaper PF to offset the costs. For instance, you could pay a starting PF 9M per, pay Roy 15M per, and still have a savings of almost 3M between the two positions.

                The cap issues are really only a concern for next season. After that, the Pacers have tons and tons of salary dropping off the books. They staggered out their salary nicely. They only have two players (PG/GHIll) under contract for the 16/17 season, when Roy would be a FA.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  "have the best record in the NBA" comes with a bench including Danny and Scola. Not sure that's the same "crappy bench" as last year.

                  This team was 20-5 (80%) before Granger came back. They are 13-3 since his return (81.25%). The team's winning percentage has increased by a tiny fraction since his return. In no way am I trying to marginalize his importance to the bench. He is superior to Solo and OJ. But this team was well on its way to winning a ton of games before his return.

                  Scola and CJ have no doubt been a big part of our success. They are certainly better than what we had last year. But the number 1 reason we are so dominant is because of our starting unit. Two of the players, Lance and PG, have increased their games by leaps and bounds over a year ago when we took the Heat to 7. So if we can take the Heat to 7 last year with just our starting lineup, then I'd be pretty confident in that starting lineup again since two key players have improved so much.

                  I'm a huge fan of having an improved bench. It has obviously made us a better team. But this deadly starting lineup is the number 1 reason for the team's successes over the last couple of seasons.

                  A Hibbert/PG/Lance core ensures that this team will be nasty for many years to come. Sure West will get old at some point and there will likely have to be other changes. But as long as we have those three players, we'll be fine.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                    The question might end up being would you lose Lance to keep Danny, Ian, Luis AND CJ? Not OR but instead AND, as in multiple players or even most of the second unit.
                    I'd rather have a silver dollar than a few quarters. Silver dollars are rare. Quarters OTOH can be found anywhere.

                    Scola, CJ, and Ian are all under contract next season. Nothing says that we have to dump those players to keep Lance. How much does this franchise value having the best record in the NBA? That's the big question. Being the best comes at a price, but the benefits arguably outweigh the costs when you look at the big picture.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                      I fully believe Lance could be our #2 scoring option right now and give us a reasonably efficient 20 a night if asked to. Throw in his superstar-level complete game, and I think anything less than $12M a year is going to end up a huge steal.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                        Whatever it takes, within reason. I'm comfortable anywhere in the 8-12 million a year range, I think. I've got to see him play like this for the second half of the season and step up his playoff game a little bit before I do anything though.

                        The core of PG, Hibbert and Lance will be good enough to compete for however long all of them want to stay here. Keep them together as long as we can.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          They should be able to pay Roy similiar money, and get a cheaper PF to offset the costs. For instance, you could pay a starting PF 9M per, pay Roy 15M per, and still have a savings of almost 3M between the two positions.

                          The cap issues are really only a concern for next season. After that, the Pacers have tons and tons of salary dropping off the books. They staggered out their salary nicely. They only have two players (PG/GHIll) under contract for the 16/17 season, when Roy would be a FA.
                          Roy won't be 15 mil. We'll have to pay Roy 18 after he opts out and if we don't his agent has already proven to us that Roy will be willing to sign for that max elsewhere only this time he won't be restricted.
                          West will still be under contract when Roy opts out and we'll need Scola's expiring contract then just to keep Roy so we can't use that now on Lance. The cap and L.T. will be a bigger issue the following summer then this summer.
                          I think the bottom line is if we pay Lance much over 10 mil then we may lose Roy the following summer. I'm not willing to do that.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                            You pay him more than the highest bidder, whatever that is. I doubt it is more than $12m, but I went with $14m because he is vital to our goal of winning a championship. Having a good bench would be nice for having a good regular season record and maybe making the Finals, but we need to invest in young players like him if we are going to have continued success.

                            Paul, Lance, and Roy. Those are the big 3 you keep no matter what. Hopefully you could pay them an average of $50m or so in the future. Then you have enough cap space to build around them. We won't be able to pay power forwards like West $12m per year, and Hill might have to be traded, but with that big 3, the championship will always be in sight. A top 5 player, the best center in the league, and a shooting guard with insane potential who is already All-Star caliber. Most teams would kill for that. We can't throw it away because we need to have Chris Copeland or Luis Scola.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                              If we move Copeland, don't we have around $12 million to give to Lance? I feel like that'll be about as good of an offer as he'll get, not to mention we can offer him higher escalation %'s than anyone else.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I cannot accept losing Lance just so we can have enough $$$ to fill out the bench with a Dhantay Jones, Earl Watson, Gerald Green, Ian Mahinmi, or Chris Copeland.
                                Except that instead of Dhantay Jones it is Danny Granger. Instead of Copeland it is Scola. Instead of Earl it is CJ.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X