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

Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

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

  • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

    Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
    And yet during the POs vs Miami the national media crucified Lance's every comment (Wade's knees) and actions (vs. LBJ).
    I get what you are saying, but should anyone care about most of the national media? Does the Pacers brass care what some of the talking heads say?

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

      Turns out the Heat did in fact look at Lance...

      And, as ESPN's Dan LeBatard reported Wednesday on his radio show on The Ticket in Miami—and Bleacher Report later confirmed—they even inquired about Indiana's Lance Stephenson, but they weren't offering nearly as much as the five years and $44 million that Stephenson turned down from the Pacers.
      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...in-free-agency

      Understandable considering the Heat's priorities with the LeBron, Wade and Bosh scenario still playing out and not having much to fill out the roster once/if those guys do re-sign. Signing Lance before those guys would be like the Pacers tying up money in CJ Miles before Lance Stephenson...
      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        They both need to mature, but I think that's a gamble you take given their ages. Despite any ego problems, they still have made two straight ECF's together.

        And the team played little team ball the 2nd half of the season too. What's changed that will not let this be the case this year? Please don't say maturity. If it's a maturity issue between the 2, how many years do we have to put up with it until they mature?

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

          Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post

          because the Indiana Pacers without Lance Stephenson is like NWA without Ice Cube or Bone Thugs without Krayzie.

          We definately have a generation gap here! Scratching head.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            What if Stephenson and PG can't co-exist?

            Personally, I feel there is an ego problem between the 2 where both think they are better and are out to prove it. Not all players are capable of playing with each other for the betterment of the TEAM. IMO, when Stephenson wasn't selected to the Allstar team he decided to show he was better than Allstar Paul George. Then you had 2 players playing hogball instead of TEAM BALL. This then spilled over into the locker room causing chemistry problems among the team.
            Hard to play hogball when George Hill is still dribbling at the top of the key.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              If the team doesn't really want Lance then why offer anything?? Just ask his agent for a number... then no matter the number say it's too high and don't counter it. And why the dog and pony movie for Lance if they don't want him?

              There's reading between the lines and then there's over-thinking things.

              They made Lance a nice offer. It may or may not be a take it or leave it offer (maybe there's some more NBA Monopoly Money to throw in the kitty... or not). But it was more than enough to be 'acceptable'.... which would be pretty crazy for a team that didn't actually want a player on their team. I mean the risk is he'd take it.... So not only would you be stuck paying a player you didn't really want all of your cap/luxury space money, but for several years too. Plus whatever time and money you invested in a movie to entice him to sign with you.

              None of this adds up to me to say "Lance was a problem or the problem and so they are pushing him out the door to get rid of the problem"
              My point I either made either in this thread or another thread is there is probably a middle ground here. We do want lance, and yet we have real reservations about his antics and his negative impact on our team chemistry. Seriously can't both of those things be true at the same time, isn't that almost certainlly the case.

              So it isn't so black and white to suggest well if we have reservations about him we wouldn't make an offer. Nor is it so black and white to suggest that we love him so much we are going to offer anything it takes to keep him.

              Seems to me we should all be able to agree that the pacers have made an offer to Lance based upon everything he brings to the Pacers - positive and negative.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                http://www.suntimes.com/sports/28445...-but-over.html

                There was a report that the Bulls also inquired about Pacers free agent Lance Stephenson. That call was more of a just-in-case, according to the source. The Bulls think Stephenson’s initial asking price is beyond their means.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I find it interesting that, for all the people claiming we lowballed Lance, not a single team has jumped all over this to even offer him $40/4.

                  If Lance was such a high priority for other teams as well, where are the leaks of the $10M-$12M per year offers?

                  I know it's early, but why is that ignored when there's no action on the Pacers' offer but the reason why other teams haven't acted yet?
                  In fact we have seen more reports of just the opposite. Teams are shying away from lance because they are worried about his maturity.

                  I am glad Lance is seeing what the market is for him. Sure it only takes 1 team to offer him 10M-12M per year and I am expecting a team or two to make that offer. But if Lance was as good as many in this forum seems to believe, then lance would be making the rounds like Melo. And Melo isn't crystal clean either
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-03-2014, 10:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    We definately have a generation gap here! Scratching head.
                    Yeah, I thanked for his post because of the general idea, but I've got no clue who those people are. I guess that makes us even cause they don't know me either.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                      Well laugh away.

                      I don't call people haters because they don't think Lance is worth 12 million a year, I call them haters because they never miss an opportunity to discredit everything he has accomplished. Then they cite a 28 year old George Hills stats while playing with a wealth of experience vs his 23 year old stats during only his second year as a starter, and pretend they are even close to the same thing. That was George Hills best. He is not ever gonna give you any more than 2012-2013. Lance will. He had a much better year last year, IMHO, and he is just scratching the surface. And of course you leave out his rebounding numbers, where he nearly doubles Hill. He also shot a much better percentage and played a bigger role. He was the 2nd option playing the 2nd most minutes where as Hill was a 4th option. He carried the bench most of the year.

                      Losing Lance isn't gonna hurt because of his production last year, it's gonna hurt because of his production over the next 10 years. Not getting anything in return for your 2nd best player IS a big deal and a huge step back. Losing Granger was a big deal to a lot of people and he was absolutely washed out. But losing a guy who led you in several important statistical categories and was your 2nd best player all year (including the hot start to the season), is addition by subtraction? Please. How many guys have we drafted over the last 10 years besides PG that are even half the player Lance is? Absolutely none. How many players have we had period in the last 15 with his talent level? 3-4 TOPS? These guys don't grow on trees. He was under all star consideration because he was great the first half of the year. And through THE TEAMS struggles, that were blamed mostly on Lance causing chemistry issues regardless of many other obvious reasons, he still was productive and consistent while virtually everyone else stunk it up most nights. You are blaming every others players struggles mostly on Lance, and that is not only ridiculous, it's lame. These guys are paid to perform. And short of Lance ***** slapping everyone of them right before tip off every game, there is NO EXCUSE for their play. George Hill shouldn't get a pass for not playing hard. Roy Hibbert should not get a pass for his second half, it was pathetic. David West should not get a pass for his effort in the Miami series, it was sad. These things have absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH LANCE STEPHENSON! But they have a lot to do with why we didn't finish as well as we started.

                      You can pin your future hopes on a 34 year old DWest and hopes that George Hill becomes aggressive if you want. You can hope Roy Hibbert doesn't implode next year if you wish. I'll put my money in the 23 year old who is rapidly improving and has as much talent as 90% of the players in the league and competes night in night out.
                      We obviously disagree with what Lance is. I don't think anyone has discredited what Lance has "accomplished" just that Lance hasn't accomplished anything that a starter in the NBA hasn't accomplished. Lance has been placed in a very very fortunate situation since he's been drafted. He was given a guaranteed contract as a second round pick before he even played in a SL game at a time when no one else would touch him. He was kept around in spite of his off-court legal situation with his gf when most 2nd round picks with a troubled background would have been dropped. He was allowed to sit on the bench and hone his skills and become NBA ready for two years. When he finally got a shot at real PT, he made the most of it. Then this last year, he had a good year while playing for a contract. But to act like he had a great year where he was an AS, All-NBA type of player with a "can't miss" type of talent is a bit much. And to say his "accomplishments" have been discredited - I just don't see where you're coming from.

                      As far as comparing him to Hill, Hill is a role player. Nobody has delusions of grandeur that says otherwise. With that said, Hill's 12/13 season was very comparable to Lance's season last year. Both from a numbers/production standpoint, as well as a usage standpoint. If you truly feel that Lance is a star, then yes he should absolutely outshine a role player like Hill. But even in his best year thus far, Lance had a similar year to a role player. That doesn't scream "throw $12 million at him" to me.

                      We don't know what Lance could become in the next 10 years. At this point he's just as likely to become JR Smith or Tyreke Evans as he is to become the next NBA perennial All Star. If Lance is as talented as some suggest - then the production will certainly be there. But we honestly don't know for sure - you never do. From my point of view, if he were as talented as you would suggest (better than 90% of the players in the league has been said) then he would be the talk of FA with teams beating down his door to offer him a contract that was more than the $44 Million that was reported to be offered by the Pacers.

                      I also disagree that most of our struggles were blamed on Lance. If you look through the threads MOST people here blame Roy and or Hill and want one or both gone. It's gotten to the point that both players are so under-appreciated within PD that they may be underrated at this point.

                      I don't excuse Roy for his charmin-soft mental issues, I don't excuse West for his lack of defense, rebounding or his tough guy routine, nor do I excuse Hill for his passive play. I just don't excuse Lance for his shortcomings either. And Lance had just as much to do with the way we finished the year as those other guys you mentioned. Pointing that out isn't discrediting him or his "accomplishments"

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post

                        Hard to play hogball when George Hill is still dribbling at the top of the key.
                        Lets not forget Stephenson brought up the ball dibbling and juking the time clock down as well.

                        Between Hill and Stephenson pounding the air out of the ball and not figuring out what to do with it, is a big reason I enjoyed watching the Spurs with their passing game. What's bewildering is Hill came from the Spurs, and Pop wouldn't put up with Hill's pretend PG game today.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Lets not forget Stephenson brought up the ball dibbling and juking the time clock down as well.

                          Between Hill and Stephenson pounding the air out of the ball and not figuring out what to do with it, is a big reason I enjoyed watching the Spurs with their passing game. What's bewildering is Hill came from the Spurs, and Pop wouldn't put up with Hill's pretend PG game today.
                          Yeah, but Lance was much better at producing off the dribble, either on the drive or assist. He also took more risks and turned the ball over more, but he made things happen, as opposed to Hill dribbling down the clock, then making an easy, safe pass that led to someone shooting up a really low percentage hero-ball shot.
                          Danger Zone

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                            I can't help noticing how few posters even mention the 'hero ball mentality' that took over the Pacers after the AS break. That was not all on Lance. This entire team lost focus, why? There seemed to be something special that happened around this time. I blamed the loss of Granger for a lot of it, but now I wonder a lot more about the additions of Turner and/or Allen to the mix? Egos are touchy things and in some situations it doesn't take much to throw them out of wack.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
                              The Pacers are constantly accused of bidding against themselves for the likes of Hill and West. Now they are being criticized for standing firm with a player that apparently is not able to produce a better offer.
                              Not for me! I was wrong, the FO was right to be firm. Just wished they consistently showed that kind of hardball negotiating when up against other FAs.

                              I am however rather concerned that the FO seems to be boxing themselves in financially. Really curious how it would play out.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                                Looking at the thread title, just made me get a song stuck in my head.

                                TURN DOWN FOR WHAT!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X