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 BillS View Post
    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.
    I didn't, I asked you a question.

    Originally posted by BillS View Post

    It's an opinion, but it isn't somehow a ridiculous one.
    I also didn't call it ridiculous.

    But I think if we're going to stay within the complete lines of each others arguments, that the fact that 85% of people on this board think paying Lance more than 12M is too much is important. Westbrook is making nearly 15M and will get up to nearly 18M. So no one is saying Lance should be paid like him.
    Last edited by Since86; 01-30-2014, 12:33 PM.
    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 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.
      The other difference between the Thunder and the Pacers is that the Thunder have a bad contract (Perkins at around 9 million per year). The Pacers don't have that. So they'll have one more high quality role player to surround the top 3 than the Thunder have. And the Thunder still have room this year to either resign Thabo or get another player for most of the mid level.

      The Pacers would be able to surround a Hibbert/George/Lance core with at least two high quality role players. One of those might have to be a mid level player, but they won't be close to out of money for talent after paying the first three.

      Comment


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

        Well OKC didn't let Harden walk. They got Jeremy Lamb, Steven Adams, and Dallas's draft pick one of these upcoming years. Lamb has been a solid 6th man, Adams has shown a lot of potential, and the Dallas pick could end up being pretty good potentially in the future. They built their bench through the Harden trade. Letting Lance walk gets us nothing.

        Comment


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

          The big disagreement seems to be over just how good Lance is. Some of us, me included, view him as no lower than our third most important player (I believe he's been our best player at times). Others seem to think he's a dime-a-dozen role player benefiting from our team system, and that he could be easily replaced with MLE money.


          Lance's Rankings Amongst SG
          • 16th in scoring
          • 1st in rebounding (by a huge margin)
          • 3rd in assists (behind Goran Dragic and Monta Ellis, both of whom are arguably point guards)
          • 4th in FG% (two-hundredths of a percentage behind #3 Dragic)
          • First in double-doubles (by a huge margin)
          • First in triple-doubles (as many as every other SG in the league, combined)

          ...all at the age of 23, and in his first season being used in a significant role.

          I think we're looking at a guy who not only is a star in the making, but has the skill level, passion, and charisma to be a bona fide superstar. He is as good this year as Paul George was last year, and I fully expect him to take another step forward next season.

          To lose that type of talent for nothing, and to watch the team almost certainly regress significantly, over a matter of NBA pocket change ($2-3M), is just silly. Lance should take priority over anyone on this team not named Paul George or Roy Hibbert.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            The big disagreement seems to be over just how good Lance is. Some of us, me included, view him as no lower than our third most important player (I believe he's been our best player at times). Others seem to think he's a dime-a-dozen role player benefiting from our team system, and that he could be easily replaced with MLE money.
            Actually, I don't think there's much argument over how good Lance is. The argument seems to be over whether we can keep 2 max players plus one near-max player without having to dump quality at the fourth best player position in order to dump salary.

            One extreme is that it is impossible to do so and stay under the LT, so absolutely not.

            The other extreme is that Herb Simon owes it to the city to go as far over the LT threshold as needed, so absolutely yes.

            The answer is somewhere in between, but I think no one is saying that Lance wouldn't deserve a fairly hefty paycheck. We're talking ranges waaay over the MLE for most everyone in the argument.
            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 GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              To lose that type of talent for nothing, and to watch the team almost certainly regress significantly, over a matter of NBA pocket change ($2-3M), is just silly. Lance should take priority over anyone on this team not named Paul George or Roy Hibbert.
              If it were just $2M-$3M you'd be right. But to pay Lance $14M actually ends up costing PS&E $15M-$20M more, not just $2M-$3M more. For some people that may not matter. For some people it matters a lot.
              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
                The other extreme is that Herb Simon owes it to the city to go as far over the LT threshold as needed, so absolutely yes.
                Yes, that's an extreme, but that's not what the argument is either. I would draw the line at the $5M mark, where the penalty really gets stiff and I think they'll be able to shed less than $5M to avoid the repeater tax.

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                If it were just $2M-$3M you'd be right. But to pay Lance $14M actually ends up costing PS&E $15M-$20M more, not just $2M-$3M more. For some people that may not matter. For some people it matters a lot.
                96% of us don't want to go that high.
                Last edited by Since86; 01-30-2014, 02:40 PM.
                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 BillS View Post
                  Actually, I don't think there's much argument over how good Lance is. The argument seems to be over whether we can keep 2 max players plus one near-max player without having to dump quality at the fourth best player position in order to dump salary.
                  In my opinion, if we want to keep a championship caliber team together, we HAVE to. A core of Paul George, Roy Hibbert, and any number of role players isn't a legitimate contender. Not a knock on our guys, I just don't think they can carry that type of load. We keep going to OKC as an example, so I will say I don't think Westbrook, Ibaka, and any number of role players can compete for a championship either. It's a top heavy league, and spending $1 on a star is better than $1 on 3 role players.

                  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.
                    I think this argument is as faulty as the one that said Lance isn't worth $12m because better players like Tony Parker and Steph Curry are making $12m. It doesn't matter what Durant and Westbrook are getting paid, because we can't get them at the same price (or at any price). The point is, we paid market price to retain Roy and Paul (and thanks to the artificial max contract cap, that price point is close to Durant/Westbrook), and we'll need to do the same to retain Lance.

                    Are we doomed because our big 3 isn't as good as OKC's big 3? If being possibly the second best team in the NBA is being doomed, then maybe. But the point is that someone needs to explain how NOT retaining Lance would make us better than OKC's big 3. What combo of players would you spend that $12m on (keeping in mind that for external FA's, we can only offer up to the MLE) that would make us better than we are right now?

                    Comment


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

                      Man, I did not know DeRozan is scheduled to make $9.5 per over the next 3 years.

                      Let's do a sign and trade. We will give Born to be the G.O.A.T. his $12m+ and ship him to the great White North for DeRozan.

                      21.8 - 4.7 - 3.6?

                      without reservation.

                      Of course, Toronto wouldn't be dense enough to bail us out a second time, would they?

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
                        Man, I did not know DeRozan is scheduled to make $9.5 per over the next 3 years.

                        Let's do a sign and trade. We will give Born to be the G.O.A.T. his $12m+ and ship him to the great White North for DeRozan.

                        21.8 - 4.7 - 3.6?

                        without reservation.

                        Of course, Toronto wouldn't be dense enough to bail us out a second time, would they?
                        I wouldn't do a S&T of Lance for DeRozan. That would still put us over the LT. DeRozan is a very solid scorer but he'd just be another Starting Quality scorer on this Team. Not sure if that is the direction I'd be headed in. If we do a S&T of Lance...I'd be looking for a TPE, young quality Talent that is on a rookie Contract and draft picks.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I wouldn't do a S&T of Lance for DeRozan. That would still put us over the LT. DeRozan is a very solid scorer but he'd just be another Starting Quality scorer on this Team. Not sure if that is the direction I'd be headed in. If we do a S&T of Lance...I'd be looking for a TPE, young quality Talent that is on a rookie Contract and draft picks.
                          I was being facetious.

                          But, as a matter of fact, they are the same age, DeRozan isn't the head case that the G.O.A.T. is and DeRozan is a proven consistent scorer who can ball. And he's a lot cheaper than 12+ million.

                          I understand in some areas there would be a step back but we would certainly score the ball and the West Coast trips would be fun.

                          Comment


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

                            DD is actually a year older than Paul G or Lance (1989 vs 1990).

                            I'm not sure how serious you are, but I think DD's gaudy numbers are misleading. On paper it looks like he's a more deserving All-Star than Lance, but I think it's very much the opposite.

                            Put it this way, if we were to S&T Lance to Toronto, I'd much rather get Lowry back than DD.

                            Comment


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

                              I would love to see Lance in the all-star game, but this can only help our negotiating position. I hope this keeps his price tag right at 10M.

                              BTW, I wish I could change my vote to the 10-12M range, but it's too late. I agree that we cannot afford anything 12M+ and still retain enough of a supporting cast. I also think that's too high.

                              Comment


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

                                Whatever happens in the playoffs will have an infinitely greater affect on Lance's next contract than him not making the all-star game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X