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 BlueNGold View Post
    But Lance is not an all star on another team. Players earn all star berths for team performance as much as individual accolades. Players that are better than Lance but on losing teams do not make the all star game.
    That could be true. But players who produce on great teams usually see their numbers rise on bad teams. That would get him some consideration. That happens because their name is called more often. Their numbers drop on better teams. Like Bosh used to score like a maniac in Toronto and has taken a step back. Then you have Thornton going off because Gay and Cousins were out. That's how the league operates. Touches. Just ask JO and Ron.[/QUOTE]

    He would put up better numbers, but that doesn't equate to an all star berth. Guys like Derozan, and Afflalo are having better individual season and are putting up better numbers this year, but neither are likely to make the AS team over Lance due to the performance of their respective teams.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      I disagree on this point. The back-up offense most of the time is focused around Lance or a pick and pop with Scola. This often relegates Danny to just being a spot up shooter. He has been a bit inconsistent so far, not all that unexpected, but there have been times where he has shown he is still capable of being more than just a spot-up shooter if asked.
      I'm not sure if he is trying TOO hard to "fit in" but Danny is not offensively aggressive at all right now. I agree the offense within the second unit has pushed Danny to the weak side, while running a Lance/Scola pick and pop (as you said) but Danny needs to take it upon himself to get his shots up--much like he was doing during a stretch of double figure scoring games for him.

      Until we see him doing so consistently, he's basically a "3D" player right now.

      Comment


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

        I picked $10-12 million because I think that's the absolute minimum it will take in order to even have a chance to keep him. It's going to be really hard for this team to pay more than $12 million a year.

        I think you keep Paul, Roy, and Lance and figure out the rest of the roster after that. If it means you lose any combination of Hill, Scola, Granger, and Copeland, so be it. You worry about that after you've kept the guys that are more important to the now, and the also more important to the the future.

        Comment


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

          So is there a team option on Scola's 4.5M next year or not? I have seen people say there was, but on Hoopshype there is no mention of a team option.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            I'm not sure if he is trying TOO hard to "fit in" but Danny is not offensively aggressive at all right now. I agree the offense within the second unit has pushed Danny to the weak side, while running a Lance/Scola pick and pop (as you said) but Danny needs to take it upon himself to get his shots up--much like he was doing during a stretch of double figure scoring games for him.

            Until we see him doing so consistently, he's basically a "3D" player right now.
            I think you're right, it's a little of both with Danny right now. I think it's more of Danny trying to do what it takes to help the team and doing what's asked of him by the coach but I agree that Danny needs to just demand the ball more when we need scoring from him. He's shown every ability to shoot, drive, pass and defend. When he drives he still gets to the line and he's our best or one of our best free throw shooters. With what he's shown us he's earned more minutes and a bigger piece of the offense but so far Frank isn't giving it to him. With the garbage defense Paul and Lance gave us for the past 2 games and the way they looked gassed in Denver it's ridiculous for Vogel to only give Danny 18 minutes in that game. I still think Danny is going to continue to improve as the season progresses just as West did in coming back from his surgery, but it took time. I'd like to see Danny given the chance to play 32 minutes with much of that as the focal point of the offense in the second unit. Right now Lance is that focal point because he's usually on the floor with Danny. For that to happen Vogel needs to call a few plays for Danny and tell Lance to try to be a play maker with the second unit or change the rotation. I think Danny is ready to give us more if and I think we'd see overall better results if we let him. Even with what we're getting from Danny in limited minutes our bench scoring has still jumped 6 ppg since Danny's return.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


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

              You don't throw lots of money at Lance because his net total is not of the same value, his style, his "i'm the man" attitude wont be reigned in forever, it shows in games already, he got more freedom and boy do we know it, "dribble dribble imma gonna break your ankles, dribble dribble, oh **** schotclock, here David, you fix it" is something we see a little to much and the cover your man untl the ball is on the other side then hawk for a rebvound, oh how come that geezer gets the ball back...... toooo late.
              Anything over 6 is madness, though heck since we always overpay i can "live" with 8, any penny more he is great on another ballclub.

              We have our superstar and good guy in Paul, we have our eccentric C in Roy and we need a good bench, losing them is not worth it.
              (and yes signing Lance to 12 mio or some such idiotic amount means you WILL lose Hibbert and you WILL lose Hill and you WILL lose more.)
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


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

                yes there is an option on Scola, not picking it up is not an option, no chance you get someone of his caliber in for that kind of money.
                and no, Copeland is not even close, why do you think he only plays garbage time, because he's so good he's outplaying the old Argentinian fox?
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  yes there is an option on Scola, not picking it up is not an option, no chance you get someone of his caliber in for that kind of money.
                  and no, Copeland is not even close, why do you think he only plays garbage time, because he's so good he's outplaying the old Argentinian fox?
                  Agreed, Scola is here to stay. You don't give up Plumlee and a 1st for a one year rental, when your plan was obviously to go with Copeland before Scola became an option.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    I disagree on this point. The back-up offense most of the time is focused around Lance or a pick and pop with Scola. This often relegates Danny to just being a spot up shooter. He has been a bit inconsistent so far, not all that unexpected, but there have been times where he has shown he is still capable of being more than just a spot-up shooter if asked.


                    And that's another problem. Our back up offense shouldn't be focused around a starter. We need a backup for Lance who can come off the bench and run the offense while he gets a quarter off. In those b2b games, having a guy like Stuckey who can come off and run the offense or a guy like Nick Young, who can drop 17 in a hurry....means PG and or Lance get to rest up for a 4th quarter run to try and win the game. Lance plays too many minutes already. Because our back up 2 guard spot is empty.

                    Comment


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

                      we have Watson runnning point for the second unit and Lance has the freedom to do "his thing" with that unit, which imo is counterproductive but I am not the coach.
                      it is also a reason Watson and Granger rarely see the ball, it either LS solo or a P&P with scola and the occasioanl backdoor cut from someone else.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


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

                        perhaps i should have posted this here, instead of elsewhere but so many threads with the same outcome ....

                        for those who want to throiw the kitchensink at Lance (i.e. pay more than 8 mio) realise this:

                        going into the LT doesn't only mean that you pay X for Y in a progressive scale, but it also means you get less of the shared income and NONE of the poenalty income, which by careful estimates is about 7 mio for the P's this year so going over means dropping that income as well, see, 10 mio now not only costs you the 10 mio in salary and perhaps 3 mio in tax but it also costs you the other income say 7 mio so it ends up costing you 10 mio more aka 20 mio, and trust me, Lance is not worth that kind of money, not even near.

                        So be darned sure we are not going into LT and we wont lock up anything we cant correct if we need to nex year.
                        And take it as a given that George falls under the Rose rule he already fullfilled the needed "all-star starter" criteria
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by able View Post
                          And take it as a given that George falls under the Rose rule he already fullfilled the needed "all-star starter" criteria
                          A correction here - no, he has not. He would have needed to be a STARTER twice, not just on the team twice.

                          Now, it is likely he will be named to an All-NBA team again this year, so the outcome is the same, but it hasn't happened yet.
                          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 able View Post
                            we have Watson runnning point for the second unit and Lance has the freedom to do "his thing" with that unit, which imo is counterproductive but I am not the coach.
                            it is also a reason Watson and Granger rarely see the ball, it either LS solo or a P&P with scola and the occasioanl backdoor cut from someone else.
                            I agree, I don't like what Lance does with the second unit as much as I do with the first unit. Both Lance and Paul would benefit from playing a few more minutes but if we pulled 5 minutes from Lance it needs to be the time he spends with the second unit. It all comes down to how much Vogel chooses to coach him though.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              A correction here - no, he has not. He would have needed to be a STARTER twice, not just on the team twice.

                              Now, it is likely he will be named to an All-NBA team again this year, so the outcome is the same, but it hasn't happened yet.
                              you are correct i thought he started AS last year as well, but lets face it, how big is the chance him NOT making all nba?
                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                A correction here - no, he has not. He would have needed to be a STARTER twice, not just on the team twice.

                                Now, it is likely he will be named to an All-NBA team again this year, so the outcome is the same, but it hasn't happened yet.

                                Yes, but you still might as well take it as a given that he'll be getting paid that money. Just like we need to take it as a given that Hibbert will opt out and demand 18 mil the summer after this. This is why I fall into the group that we shouldn't pay Lance 12 mil., that I don't think he'll be worth it.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X