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 graphic-er View Post
    5 million a year for Lance would have been a no brainer. The team got to the ECF inspite of Lance's crazy turnovers and terrible shot selection, if he improves like he has this year, you have a bargain. If stayed mediorce and had the up and down games, then 5 million for starting SG is an easy trade asset.
    I just don't see 8.8pts, 2.9 ast., 3.9 reb., 65% ft and 46% fg with his mental challenges a no brainer. Try to remember before this season started.
    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

    Comment


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

      If somebody wants to pay Lance 12 million a year, more power to them...Im guessing its not an executive of the year candidate because I dont believe Larry is stupid enough to do such a thing...noone knows Lance better...and hence why Larry wouldnt go there for a multitude of reasons...
      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 McKeyFan View Post
        Thanks for this clarification.

        It seems, however, that if both parties of a contract agree to end that contract, they could do so. I don't think this happens, but common sense seems to say that a player and a team could agree to end their contract and declare immediate free agency. No?
        It would if they were the only two parties involved, but in a setup like the NBA you also have the players union and league who have to also agree. Occasionally there are cases that are brought up in areas where the CBA is unclear (like Lin winning early Bird rights for example) but those are rare. I doubt a scenario like that would get approved since it had to come up in discussions for the CBA and they chose not to put that as an option.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
          If I'm not mistaken, that Ben Wallace contract turned out to be one of the worst ever.
          This is because Ben Wallace was mostly a great defender because he played with a bunch of great defenders. That isn't Roy. Roy is the one who makes out defense great. I doubt you would ever see LeBron scared to drive at the basket because Ben Wallace was down there. You see LeBron catch a glimpse of Roy and stop in his tracks all the time.

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Tyson Chandler signed that contract after being the defense anchor on a championship team, and then of course won DPOY the next year in NYC. Not mention has averaged pretty much near a double double since being in NYC. In terms of a defensive specialist, he is the perfect example of what you want from a defense focused center. The reality is that Roy Hibbert isn't going to average a double double anytime in his career. He is infact, just like Lance....a product of a successful system that has really good defenders all around him. If you put Swap
          Hibbert and Chandler, the Pacers would still have the best record in the NBA. The Knicks would still be terrible.

          Roy will not get 18 million, a smart GM would never offer him that because he knows that the Pacers have a unique starting 5 that can guard their own man, thus eliminating the constant help defense or rotation that gets guys out of position. So you have to have the right kind of roster, if Hibbert had to constant rotate over the help he would be in foul trouble every game in the 1st qtr. Its easy to stay on the court when all you have to do is patrol the paint.
          Dude you are just wrong here. Roy Hibbert is the player who makes our defense possible, without him there are maybe 2 or 3 other players in this league who could replicate what he does for this defense. We are able to implement this great defensive system because of Roy first and foremost. Without him we wouldn't be able to play defense the way we do. The Colts used to call Bob Sanders "The Eraser" because they said he erased all of the mistakes the other players made, which was a major reason for what may have been the worst run defense ever turned into a great run defense in the playoffs once he was healthy. Roy is Bob Sanders. He erases all the mistakes the other players make, and they do make a lot of mistakes. This isn't like Lance who is playing great feeding off of better players. Roy is the better player that everyone is feeding off of on defense. If Roy goes somewhere else, I can guarantee that they would implement a similar system, and they would have great success with it.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            That may have been "totally the idea" of other posts in this thread, but that wasn't "totally the idea" of the post I was responding to.

            If you think we can find a player with Lance's overall game for anywhere near the money we'll have available, then I wish you good luck, because you're going to need it. Lance is probably one of the three or so most complete shooting guards in the league, and he has the makings of a superb scorer, too, as he's shown lately, all at the ripe old age of 23.



            Again, the post I was responding to clearly made it a keeping Lance vs. keeping Scola dilemma.

            As for your points, you're exaggerating. Keeping Lance isn't going to cost us two starters and a quality bench. It may cost us one of the three, I'll grant you that, but I'd easily choose Lance over any of the other three. I'd take the young SG on the brink of greatness over the aging, declining PF, the dime-a-dozen combo-guard, or a good bench.

            If sacrifices must be made, I don't think Lance should be one of them.




            Only time will tell if that's true, but, as I just said, if sacrifices must be made, I don't think Lance should be one of them.


            For those curious, here's Lance's current production vs. Paul George's production last year, his breakout season:



            Similar across the board, with Paul being more of a scorer and Lance being more of a passer. Paul walked away with MIP, and Lance is one of the frontrunners this season.

            My hunch is, Pacers management realize they've found yet another player on the brink of being special, and will make sure he's locked up long-term this offseason.


            I've posted this earlier, and I believe Able has too. Are you willing to pay Lance whatever it takes that it will cause the Pacers to not be able to re-sign Hibbert?

            If you do, then you are saying Stephenson is more valuable than Hibbert to the Pacers, and that assumption isn't even close to being correct. Hibbert is more important to the Pacers than Stephenson will ever be. Hibbert is the anchor to the best "D" in the NBA, and big men like Hibbert are hard to come by. You can't plug the loss of Hibbert in with Mahinmi or some other b/u journryman big. You can't draft a 5 and wait 4 or 5 years for him to develop and waste the prime years of PG and Stephenson. Bird either pays Stephenson what the Pacers can afford w/o losing Hibbert in the future, and the quality of the present bench, or Bird allows Stephenson to move on. Bird is astute enough to know the Pacers will survive w/o Stephenson, and has said so. He'll plug the hole, and move forward same as OKC did with Harden.

            I'll bet OKC fans said the same thing about re-signing Harden. OKC FO didn't pay him, and IIRC OKC presently has the 3rd best record in the NBA.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Also I'm not sold on the idea that Hibbert will get 18 million. He does not average enough points or rebounds to justify that kind of contract. You gotta be a double double type big man to get that kind of contract.

              I have to disagree. People didn't feel Hibbert would get 14 mil either. It only takes another Portland willing to spend the money. Big men always get overpaid especially quality ones.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

                i suppose u can wish. But Bird will resign Lance. Book it.


                I'm "resigned" Bird won't re-sign Stephenson and put the Pacers in a finanical problem for the future.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  I have to disagree. People didn't feel Hibbert would get 14 mil either. It only takes another Portland willing to spend the money. Big men always get overpaid especially quality ones.
                  Umm, not really. The discussion was whether or not Roy would simply re-sign or if he would look at other offers. Some (which I'll admit I was a part of) took Roy's comments about him not being a max player, not that he wasn't worth it, but rather that he wouldn't ask it of the Pacers.

                  Saying he's not worth it, and saying he wouldn't sign a contract that big from another team are two different opinions. They might have the same outcome, that we didn't think Roy would sign a 14M/year contract, but they start at different places.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                    There are rules that govern when teams can offer extensions and how much they can offer to players. Because Lance was making so little and was a second round pick, the most the Pacers could offer him in an extension was between 1 and 2 million per year.

                    That's also why you see so few extensions in the NBA. The rookie scale is one common exception to that which is how Paul George signed an extension. Hill and West were both free agents (Hill restricted, West unrestricted) and signed new deals. Neither one of them signed extensions.
                    Thank you for the clarification, so could we have offered Lance an extension of $2 million a year for 2-4 years? If yes, then we completely screwed the pooch. Sometimes "He who hesitates" is more than a neat saying. Unless I'm not totally lost, we could have allowed PG to go all of this year and still matched whatever offer he received, yes?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                      Thank you for the clarification, so could we have offered Lance an extension of $2 million a year for 2-4 years? If yes, then we completely screwed the pooch. Sometimes "He who hesitates" is more than a neat saying. Unless I'm not totally lost, we could have allowed PG to go all of this year and still matched whatever offer he received, yes?
                      The biggest extension we could've offered Lance would've been 4 years/and like 5.1 million. 5.1 million TOTAL, not per year. There'd be absolutely no reason for him to take that. The only pooch we screwed is getting a really good player in the 2nd round.

                      Yes, we could've done that with PG. What's that matter? The only difference would probably be him saying screw you, gimme the full 30%.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        If you go on a neutral forum, I think most people will pick Lance over these guys (with the exception of maybe Afflalo) by a landslide. Note too that Lance is the youngest with only DD and Tyreke being close in age. Potential factors in to the high valuation of Lance, whether you think it's warranted or not.



                        Oh I agree that we'll be in tough financial spot. Assuming PG and RH are the 2 guys we want to keep at all costs, the next question is who is most expendable among West, Hill, and Lance. In an ideal world, we get to keep all 3, but if you have to sacrifice one, who would it be? In your case I'm pretty sure it's Lance, but other people have different opinions.
                        If it came down to sacrificing either Hill or West to keep Lance, it would be a tuff decision. Lance can replace Hil. OTOH, DWest is being paid 12 mil and Scola has been a starter in the past. I'd hate to lose DWest as I feel he's the heart n soul of this team. Tuff decision, but DWest contract ends in 2 years and Hill's not for another 3 years. I'd probably have to go with letting Hill go even tho he's younger and makes less money than DWest. Plus I feel it would be harder to replace DWest for the future than Hill.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                          Thank you for the clarification, so could we have offered Lance an extension of $2 million a year for 2-4 years? If yes, then we completely screwed the pooch. Sometimes "He who hesitates" is more than a neat saying.


                          Like Lance would have taken that offer.

                          Sometimes people forget there are TWO sides to a contract negotiation, and the player/agent side is not stupid.
                          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


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

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            Tyson Chandler signed that contract after being the defense anchor on a championship team, and then of course won DPOY the next year in NYC. Not mention has averaged pretty much near a double double since being in NYC. In terms of a defensive specialist, he is the perfect example of what you want from a defense focused center. The reality is that Roy Hibbert isn't going to average a double double anytime in his career. He is infact, just like Lance....a product of a successful system that has really good defenders all around him. If you put Swap
                            Hibbert and Chandler, the Pacers would still have the best record in the NBA. The Knicks would still be terrible.

                            Roy will not get 18 million, a smart GM would never offer him that because he knows that the Pacers have a unique starting 5 that can guard their own man, thus eliminating the constant help defense or rotation that gets guys out of position. So you have to have the right kind of roster, if Hibbert had to constant rotate over the help he would be in foul trouble every game in the 1st qtr. Its easy to stay on the court when all you have to do is patrol the paint.

                            Since when are all GM's are smart?!?!

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Why?

                              The dude has been working hard for all his life to get to the NBA...he paid his dues since he came to the Pacers, he worked his butt off to get to this point and has been paid of a pittance of what he is worth now.

                              I have ZERO problem with Lance taking more $$$ to go to a lottery bound Team.

                              True...he may not end up on an Elite Team like the Pacers.....but the guy is young enough where he will have more opportunities later in his career. One can't blame him for going where the $$$ is offered. I want him to be a Pacer for life...and he may end up on a Team without the same type of FO support system that he has now....but I also realize that the dude has to take care of his family.
                              I would enjoy having Lance on my team to be honest. That's why this thread is here to think of ways to keep Lance in Indy
                              Smothered Chicken!

                              Comment


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

                                I'd offer Lance 10 out of the gate with a willingness to negotiate as high as 12.5.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X