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 Ace E.Anderson

    T-mac's contract was 6yr 67.5 mil. Still not 12 mil per lol
    The salary cap when McGrady signed that deal was $35,500,000.

    The salary cap this year is $58,679,000.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
      First of all, they didn't let him walk. They traded him. Granted it was not a ton of value, but they did still get back some relatively high draft picks that are currently helping their team. Second, they have Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka. If we had those 3 guys under contract I doubt many would be so concerned about the status of Lance. Even WITH Lance, OKC's big 3 is better than ours. Good news is our next 2 starters are better than their next 2, but unfortunately with the way max contracts work, it leaves them in a better financial position than the Pacers.

      Comment


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

        OKC essentially had to choose between Harden and Ibaka if they wanted to stay under the luxury tax. They already had 2 of the 5 best players in the league playing the same role as Harden. Ibaka became an easy choice.

        We are choosing between Lance and... Hill, Scola, Granger, Copeland? Some combination of that. Seems like choosing Lance becomes an easy choice when compared to the alternative.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          True, but you must admit..bigs ALWAYS get paid. They always have.
          True, but players with potential in general always get paid. Lance might not be worth 12M right now, but in 3 years?
          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 Since86 View Post
            True, but players with potential in general always get paid. Lance might not be worth 12M right now, but in 3 years?

            That's the thing. I think that too many people are analyzing this through the prism of whether or not the Pacers could survive without this 2013-14 Lance, as if he close to reaching his peak. Just look at how drastically Lance improved from last year to this year. He's a completely different player. And you have to keep in mind that this is still just his second season of playing big minutes. A mere two years ago, he was just a bottom of the rotation player who didn't get a lot of clock. He is just 23 and is at the point where the historical evidence shows that he should still make a couple more significant leaps as long as he stays healthy. Given his intense work ethic and the quality of the Pacers' coaching staff, I'll gladly role the dice on this kid continuing to kid better over the next several years. How many good players who stay relatively healthy throughout their career hit their peak at age 23? Very very very few.

            It could get to a point in a couple of years where we look at Lance's new contract as a bargain.....

            Comment


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

              So basically you are justifying paying PG, Roy, and Lance the same total amount that OKC pays Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka, which for them is OK because they have two of the best 5 players in the NBA.

              Assume this is true.

              Unless PG, Roy, or Lance make up 2 or 3 of the other best players in the NBA, we'd better have other weapons besides that big 3 in order to take them on. That means our need for salary is a bit different because we have to have higher level role players than OKC needs to have.

              Bottom line is that I expect Lance will get paid. Much as I'd like Herb to go into the LT, he probably won't (getting a chance to make up your previous losses and being told you need to knuckle down and lose more money seems a contradiction to me). Therefore, we have to continue to look at ways to build a third option from the roleplayers surrounding Roy and PG rather than depending on having a big 3 with rookie contract or vet minimum surrounding players.
              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?

                Does anyone think that finding the complimentary pieces necessary to compete would be easier with just Paul and Roy, than it would be with Paul, Roy, and Lance?

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  So basically you are justifying paying PG, Roy, and Lance the same total amount that OKC pays Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka, which for them is OK because they have two of the best 5 players in the NBA.

                  Assume this is true.

                  Unless PG, Roy, or Lance make up 2 or 3 of the other best players in the NBA, we'd better have other weapons besides that big 3 in order to take them on. That means our need for salary is a bit different because we have to have higher level role players than OKC needs to have.

                  Bottom line is that I expect Lance will get paid. Much as I'd like Herb to go into the LT, he probably won't (getting a chance to make up your previous losses and being told you need to knuckle down and lose more money seems a contradiction to me). Therefore, we have to continue to look at ways to build a third option from the roleplayers surrounding Roy and PG rather than depending on having a big 3 with rookie contract or vet minimum surrounding players.
                  Durant/Westbrook are being underpaid compared to their real value. And besides, most aren't saying Lance should be paid at Westbrooks level, as he's making 14.6M this year and will be making 17.8M by the last year of his contract.
                  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?

                    BillS argument applies to PG just as much as it does Lance. PG isn't on Durant's level, yet he's getting a similiar contract. Does PG deserve his contract?
                    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?

                      I don't think anyone here wants to see the Pacers pay $12M annually, but if push comes to shove, and the risk is letting him leave for nothing. I'm ponying up the extra $3 million per year. Yes, that may cost you a Chris Copeland type player, but I'd run that risk than to let a dynamic young guard leave who may just be coming into his own.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        BillS argument applies to PG just as much as it does Lance. PG isn't on Durant's level, yet he's getting a similiar contract. Does PG deserve his contract?
                        PG is a lot closer to KD than Lance is to Westbrook.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          BillS argument applies to PG just as much as it does Lance. PG isn't on Durant's level, yet he's getting a similiar contract. Does PG deserve his contract?
                          Yeah but I think he is operating under the assumption that PG falls into the "one of the top five players in the NBA" category.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Durant/Westbrook are being underpaid compared to their real value. And besides, most aren't saying Lance should be paid at Westbrooks level, as he's making 14.6M this year and will be making 17.8M by the last year of his contract.
                            I was thinking of Lance being the equivalent of Ibaka's contract. That's CONTRACT, not PLAY.

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            BillS argument applies to PG just as much as it does Lance. PG isn't on Durant's level, yet he's getting a similiar contract. Does PG deserve his contract?
                            Please don't put words in my mouth. I never hinted, insinuated, winked at, or pointed to as it went flying by the idea that PG is not worth his contract.

                            My point is we are paying max salaries, at least 2 when Roy gets his next contract. Our two guys currently on (or expected to be on) those salaries are not going to carry a team with a third perennial All-Star and no other high-level role-players. That's just the way it is, and no more than 2 teams can have 2 of the top 5 players, so saying we're paying max for guys "only" in the top 10 isn't some kind of slam - it's just what the top-10 is worth.

                            With Durant/Westbrook, the point was made that one other high-flyer is sufficient to be one of the best 4 teams in the NBA. I think we've seen that, while at the very highest levels of the NBA, Roy and PG aren't that good (and don't fit together as well, which may be more important). That means we need to spread our money around more upper-level role-players, not spend it all on one single guy.

                            It's an opinion, but it isn't somehow a ridiculous one.
                            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 BillS View Post

                              With Durant/Westbrook, the point was made that one other high-flyer is sufficient to be one of the best 4 teams in the NBA. I think we've seen that, while at the very highest levels of the NBA, Roy and PG aren't that good (and don't fit together as well, which may be more important). That means we need to spread our money around more upper-level role-players, not spend it all on one single guy.

                              It's an opinion, but it isn't somehow a ridiculous one.
                              We already have a good role player starting point guard who is under contract through 2017. We have David West under contract through 2016. For the next couple of seasons, we don't have to worry about what we are surrounding Hibbert/PG/Lance with if we are willing to pay for it . We know for a fact that this starting lineup can push the Heat to 7 games, and that was when PG and Lance aren't near as good as they are now. I love having a good bench, but a guy like Scola is in the twilight of his career. Same with DG.

                              It just comes down to how much the billionaire owner is willing to reach into his pockets.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                I was thinking of Lance being the equivalent of Ibaka's contract. That's CONTRACT, not PLAY.



                                Please don't put words in my mouth. I never hinted, insinuated, winked at, or pointed to as it went flying by the idea that PG is not worth his contract.

                                My point is we are paying max salaries, at least 2 when Roy gets his next contract. Our two guys currently on (or expected to be on) those salaries are not going to carry a team with a third perennial All-Star and no other high-level role-players. That's just the way it is, and no more than 2 teams can have 2 of the top 5 players, so saying we're paying max for guys "only" in the top 10 isn't some kind of slam - it's just what the top-10 is worth.

                                With Durant/Westbrook, the point was made that one other high-flyer is sufficient to be one of the best 4 teams in the NBA. I think we've seen that, while at the very highest levels of the NBA, Roy and PG aren't that good (and don't fit together as well, which may be more important). That means we need to spread our money around more upper-level role-players, not spend it all on one single guy.

                                It's an opinion, but it isn't somehow a ridiculous one.
                                Ibaka got $49 million over 4 years. That's probably fairly close to what it will take to keep Lance around. The Pacers can find a way to make that $12+ per year work. If they don't do that, and let Lance go, they don't have anything even close to $12 million to spread around. That alternative doesn't exist.

                                By letting Lance go, we basically have to resort to trying to find those upper-level role-players with guys on rookie contracts. That's going to be tough when our first draft pick is somewhere in the late 50's next year. Unless you just really believe in Solomon Hill.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X