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

Bird's comments on plan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Bird's comments on plan

    Good news! Just found an article from the good folks at 8 points 9 seconds, that has the breakdown of exactly how much of Scola's deal is guaranteed.

    http://8points9seconds.com/2014/06/0...urrent/#!4Olb4

    So the Pacers are only on the hook for $1.9m of Scola's 2014-15 salary, and could save around $2.9m if they waived him this summer.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Bird's comments on plan

      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
      Honestly I'd rather have Evan Turner than George Hill. Turner is a better player.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Bird's comments on plan

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        I am annoyed that we chose another "stash" pick. I mean what about the people who sat through the draft to see if we'd trade down, or do something? A stash pick is a slap in the face.
        Thankfully Larry Bird's focus is on building a great basketball team and not appeasing television viewers.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Bird's comments on plan

          So for the capologists: even though we aren't paying Scola's full salary, does it all count against our cap? I assume it does.
          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


          • #35
            Re: Bird's comments on plan

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            So for the capologists: even though we aren't paying Scola's full salary, does it all count against our cap? I assume it does.
            Only the guaranteed part does.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Bird's comments on plan

              The Heat will only get worse, while the Pacers should improve with Lance and PG being so young, so that is great news to me. I completely agree with Larry's plan.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Bird's comments on plan

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Okay I keep hearing that we are young and have good depth, but I guess I don't see it. We have had a strong starting 5, but that group seems to be regressing a bit collectively as individual players (Paul and Lance specifically) are improving individually.

                Outside of those two, who else on this team is "young"? Roy and Hill are 27 which is the equivalent to "in their prime" nowadays. Neither player is certainly going to make a quantum leap in terms of skills or production IMO. You can throw a 27 year old Ian Mahinmi in there as well. West and Scola are on their last legs (Scola moreso than West) Copeland is 29, CJ is 30, and outside of Solomon Hill who is 23 - nobody else on the roster is worth talking about because they most likely will not be here/will contribute. This team is no longer "young".

                And as far as depth goes, I don't know about that anymore either. We used to be a team whose continuity and togetherness overcame our lack of top tier talent. Now it seems as some of our younger players have realized their talented, we've lost that continuity. As talented as Paul and Lance may be (which is debatable) they aren't good enough to lead a team to a championship without a strong supporting cast around them. But when you compare us to some of the other top teams (SA, MIA, OKC, LAC, GS, MEM, etc) do we have as much depth as they do? I don't know.

                I don't mean for my post to sound like we just suck. In spite of our ugly second half of the season last year, we did win 57 games and make it to the ECF. I'm just afraid that if we stand pat while other teams look to improve - some of those teams could catch up and surpassing the Pacers who aren't overly talented to begin with.
                Our 2 best players, Lance is 23, PG is 24. Solomon Hill is young, 27 isn't exactly old, you still have 3-4 good prime years left with them. Most importantly, Donald Sloan is also young.
                Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 06-27-2014, 10:38 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Bird's comments on plan

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  It's more like dating your worst enemy's batshit crazy ex who tried to stab you in the face with a broken beer bottle a couple of times.
                  Hilarious!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Bird's comments on plan

                    Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post
                    Removing West from the equation, our starters average age is a shade under 26. That's a pretty good number. If we can just make the ECF two more years in a row, we'll be in a good position for another 3-5 after that with Hibbert, West, G3, and Ian all expiring after two more seasons. Larry is going to do what Larry does and that's stay patient. He may try to find lightening in a bottle (Turner and Bynum come to mind) every now and again, but when the bulk of your money is tied up in a starting 5 that has made two consecutive ECF (a year prior to that, playing MIA tough in the 2nd round)... you can't really afford the ideal bench without going over the luxury tax. I'm riding Bird on this one.

                    It sounds like he wants to bring back Lavoy and we're going to give Solomon some minutes. There's two young guys for the bench to complement CJ, Scola, and Ian. Nothing wrong with that. Who knows, maybe Larry has something else up his sleeve with a few cheap expiring's at his disposal (Scola, Cope, CJ, and Sloan).

                    Again, we just need to keep making that ECF with a hopeful Finals visit then wait to see what we do with our cap space in two years.

                    Larry.
                    You can't just remove West from the equation. He's a big part of the equation. And he's not getting younger. And I'm not saying we are an old team at all, but we certainly aren't young and can't use that as an excuse nor a reason to think we will continue to improve in the future. If the Raptors can re-sign Lowry, they'll only get better. Washington is only going to get better. Chicago is trying to improve by leaps and bounds, but are always tough regardless. I think the Hornets are going to be pretty decent. And then wherever Bron goes they're going to be in play every year. Yes - even if he re-signs with the Heat. And that's just in the east. In the west, there are plenty of teams (N.O, PHX, quickly come to mind) that are on the come up.

                    Like I said earlier - I'm not sure whether remaining patient is a good or a bad idea at this point. With this group of players they can look great one game and like the Milwaukee Bucks the next. My original point was that we aren't one of the younger teams anymore. Our core is a veteran core with plenty of veteran experience.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Bird's comments on plan

                      Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                      Our 2 best players, Lance is 23, PG is 24. Solomon Hill is young, 27 isn't exactly old, you still have 3-4 good prime years left with them. Most importantly, Donald Sloan is also young.
                      Our two best players are 34 (West) and 24. We don't know if Lance is on this team moving forward and shouldn't automatically count him within the equation. With that said, I'm not willing to say he's better than West just yet. Solo showed nothing so we don't know if he's good or not to be honest. And while 27 isn't old by any means, it certainly isn't an age where players are expected to make a big jump in the next year or two.

                      I'm not saying we are an old team, I just don't buy that we are a young team with great depth.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Bird's comments on plan

                        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                        Our 2 best players, Lance is 23, PG is 24. Solomon Hill is young, 27 isn't exactly old, you still have 3-4 good prime years left with them. Most importantly, Donald Sloan is also young.
                        Solomon Hill is only 23, not 27.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Bird's comments on plan

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          You can't just remove West from the equation. He's a big part of the equation. And he's not getting younger. And I'm not saying we are an old team at all, but we certainly aren't young and can't use that as an excuse nor a reason to think we will continue to improve in the future. If the Raptors can re-sign Lowry, they'll only get better. Washington is only going to get better. Chicago is trying to improve by leaps and bounds, but are always tough regardless. I think the Hornets are going to be pretty decent. And then wherever Bron goes they're going to be in play every year. Yes - even if he re-signs with the Heat. And that's just in the east. In the west, there are plenty of teams (N.O, PHX, quickly come to mind) that are on the come up.

                          Like I said earlier - I'm not sure whether remaining patient is a good or a bad idea at this point. With this group of players they can look great one game and like the Milwaukee Bucks the next. My original point was that we aren't one of the younger teams anymore. Our core is a veteran core with plenty of veteran experience.
                          So PG and Lance aren't young, and won't get better as they get more experience?

                          I find it funny that all those teams will get better with maturity, but yet you balk at that rationale when applied to the Pacers.

                          EDIT: The average age for the Pacers was 27.5 last season. The average age for the teams you just listed?
                          Toronto - 26.5
                          Washington - 27.2
                          Chicago - 28.9
                          NO - 25.2

                          http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/tra...osition_search
                          Last edited by Since86; 06-27-2014, 11:01 AM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Bird's comments on plan

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                            I don't mean for my post to sound like we just suck. In spite of our ugly second half of the season last year, we did win 57 games and make it to the ECF. I'm just afraid that if we stand pat while other teams look to improve - some of those teams could catch up and surpassing the Pacers who aren't overly talented to begin with.
                            But what can we realistically do right now?

                            We obviously don't want to trade PG.

                            We don't have the rights to Lance at the moment so we can't consider him an asset. We need to keep him because losing him means a significant talent downgrade.

                            Hibbert was the butt of all national jokes and I doubt he has much value around the league. I'd much rather keep him and give him another chance than sell him for pennies.

                            Hill's contract makes him virtually impossible to trade.

                            I doubt anyone wants West's contract either, plus I'd be terrified at what would happen to the locker room without him. If you could actually get a good young player for him that you knew could grow with PG in the future, then you would at least have to listen to it.

                            There's really nothing appealing about the rest of our roster. Bird has traditionally valued draft picks and I don't see him parting with anymore future first rounders after doing it last year.

                            At the end of the day, our best move is to gamble on the continued growth of a unit that, despite the ugly second half collapse, has accomplished some very nice things together over the last few years. Re-sign Lance and hope that they continue to grow.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Bird's comments on plan

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So PG and Lance aren't young, and won't get better as they get more experience?

                              I find it funny that all those teams will get better with maturity, but yet you balk at that rationale when applied to the Pacers.
                              That's not what I said at all. I mentioned in my initial post that they both are young and will undoubtedly improve. But as of right now we don't even know if Lance is here moving forward - so it's tough to automatically pencil him in as a part of the core. Once he signs, then that's a different story.

                              With that said, both guys will continue to improve their game.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Bird's comments on plan

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                But what can we realistically do right now?

                                We obviously don't want to trade PG.

                                We don't have the rights to Lance at the moment so we can't consider him an asset. We need to keep him because losing him means a significant talent downgrade.

                                Hibbert was the butt of all national jokes and I doubt he has much value around the league. I'd much rather keep him and give him another chance than sell him for pennies.

                                Hill's contract makes him virtually impossible to trade.

                                I doubt anyone wants West's contract either, plus I'd be terrified at what would happen to the locker room without him. If you could actually get a good young player for him that you knew could grow with PG in the future, then you would at least have to listen to it.

                                There's really nothing appealing about the rest of our roster. Bird has traditionally valued draft picks and I don't see him parting with anymore future first rounders after doing it last year.

                                At the end of the day, our best move is to gamble on the continued growth of a unit that, despite the ugly second half collapse, has accomplished some very nice things together over the last few years. Re-sign Lance and hope that they continue to grow.
                                I'm no Grimp lol so I don't have crazy trade scenarios. But you're right, it'd be tough to make significant moves with the contracts we have on the roster.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X