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?

    Hibbert sucking had nothing to do with Lance. It isn't Lance's fault that Roy scored 0 points and 0 rebounds in the playoffs, where NBA players really earn their keep. It isn't Lance's fault our $15 million center was benched in the playoffs being guarded by a 30 year old rookie/cab driver
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Lance isn't good enough to be an irreplaceable deciding factor in us winning a championship. The idea of building around him and Paul like some on here want to do is not a smart idea. Paul is not Durant, and Lance is not Westbrook. We would be setting ourselves up for failure if we go in that direction. We would end up being something similar to the Josh Smith Hawks. Yeah, talent wise you seem like you should be competing for a championship, but you got this fatal flaw in your design that holds you back from truly competing.
      OK, but here's the question. Is CJ Miles closer to Westbrook than is Lance? Because that is what we are looking at as the alternative.
      There's no K-Love for Scola trade going down.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        I agree, and the coaches need to work on getting Roy the ball in better positions to score. A straight post-up should not be your main way of using a post player who has trouble keeping position. Do something like, set a pick and have him come across the lane and receive the pass so he isn't having to establish position as often. Have him flash to a spot directly in front of the basket for a quick hook shot. In general have him moving to positions and receiving the ball instead of establishing position and receiving the ball. If it isn't there quickly, move the ball. Oh, and get rid of the wing cut on every post up. Just leave that guy out there, just have him move to a better position for a catch and shoot, and if Roy isn't getting something he likes then have him cut to the basket.
        Unfortunately, Hibbert doesn't 'flash' anywhere for a 'quick' shot (or decision). He lumbers...
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


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

          Can we stop making excuses for Roy sucking? He was so bad he was benched vs Atlanta, and the convenient excuse he gets was "Atlanta was just a terrible match-up for Roy". He shoots a **** poor FG% for a center, and it's "his teammates fault" for not passing him the ball where he likes it. Roy gets the ball, stands forever, starts dribbling, and puts up a crappy hook shot from 15 feet out, and its "well we need Roy to score to be at our best." Roy cannot rebound or jump, and its "Lance steals rebounds from Roy." Why can't we as Pacer fans admit that Roy's contract is horrible. If he only cared about defense, and didn't care about scoring, he would be worth it. The fact that Roy needs to be involved in our offense has ruined our team. Lance shoots almost 50%, and roy shoots almost 40%. Who wouldn't in their right minds want Lance shooting more
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


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

            Damn.. I don't think it's the best fit for Lance, but if there's anyone that could keep him in line it would be MJ. Just the respect he commands, kinda like Bird really. Hope Bird's got a plan if we lose him. Standing pat I feel we got very little chance next year.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
              You will see the Hibbert of the 2012-2013 season if we don't re-sign Lance. Lance really takes away from Roys game in countless ways. Also I'd rather pay a defensive specialist in Hibbert 15 mil than someone like Hayward or Parsons 15 mil... Roy will turn it around this season and this is coming from someone who isn't a big supporter of Roy, but I still think he can return to his old self
              Yes I hope he can return to his 2012-2013 form. 12 points on 45% FG. What an offensive beast we can look forward to.....
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                Damn.. I don't think it's the best fit for Lance, but if there's anyone that could keep him in line it would be MJ. Just the respect he commands, kinda like Bird really. Hope Bird's got a plan if we lose him. Standing pat I feel we got very little chance next year.
                I don't think MJ commands the same level of respect that Larry receives. Players respect MJ's game, and iconic presence, but he carries himself in a "you will never be close to as good as I was" kind of way. Larry Bird dominated a predominately African American game, and black players are really drawn to this.
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  Maybe you're right, but it's also possible the FO knows a lot more inside stuff and feels like for whatever reason their offer is as much as we should risk. If they REALLY wanted Lance back they would find a way. I'm more inclined to think they balanced the positives and negatives with bringing Lance back and that's as far as they are willing to go. Like I said in a previous post, I have a feeling we don't know NEAR all that happened in regards to the meltdown last year.(and no I'm not putting it all on Lance)
                  I wonder if the Pacers are surprised by the lack of offers for Lance?
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


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

                    We are all aware that the FO has a number they won't go over to sign Lance. I'm guessing it's not the very first offer they threw out there. It hasn't been updated because nobody's been serious with Lance yet.

                    Keep in mind we have several things working in our favor:
                    • Remember that with an ascending contract on a 5 year deal, you only add ~16% of the total number to the first year. So if you add $6 mil, you only have to add about $1 mil to this year's salary. So if we can find somebody willing to take any 1 of our bench players off of our hands, we can add a LOT more money to the total figure.
                    • We currently have 14 players under contract, 2 of whom are on unguaranteed contracts and 1 which is partially unguaranteed. Simply cutting all 3 players essentially gives us enough space for Lance with the current offer, and lets us begin the season with 13 men on the roster.
                    • We have the stretch provision available.
                    • Our team is better than any team that's been seriously entertaining Lance.
                    • Charlotte is one of the few teams that actually played at a SLOWER pace than Indiana last season.
                    • Our offseason was spent adding a backup guard and two guys who fill positions that are likely to be vacated if we have to cut salary.




                    Bottom line, unless Charlotte gives Lance a near max contract I think he's going to be in blue and gold next season.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      We are all aware that the FO has a number they won't go over to sign Lance. I'm guessing it's not the very first offer they threw out there. It hasn't been updated because nobody's been serious with Lance yet.

                      Keep in mind we have several things working in our favor:
                      • Remember that with an ascending contract on a 5 year deal, you only add ~16% of the total number to the first year. So if you add $6 mil, you only have to add about $1 mil to this year's salary. So if we can find somebody willing to take any 1 of our bench players off of our hands, we can add a LOT more money to the total figure.
                      • We currently have 14 players under contract, 2 of whom are on unguaranteed contracts and 1 which is partially unguaranteed. Simply cutting all 3 players essentially gives us enough space for Lance with the current offer, and lets us begin the season with 13 men on the roster.
                      • We have the stretch provision available.
                      • Our team is better than any team that's been seriously entertaining Lance.
                      • Charlotte is one of the few teams that actually played at a SLOWER pace than Indiana last season.
                      • Our offseason was spent adding a backup guard and two guys who fill positions that are likely to be vacated if we have to cut salary.




                      Bottom line, unless Charlotte gives Lance a near max contract I think he's going to be in blue and gold next season.
                      This assumes that Larry is interested in amending his offer. Larry tends to say what he means. I hope you're right. I don't feel the doom and gloom some feel if lance leaves (8-10 games give me a break), but you never wanna lose young talent unless you absolutely have to.
                      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        Yes I hope he can return to his 2012-2013 form. 12 points on 45% FG. What an offensive beast we can look forward to.....
                        How many times do I have to repeat this? Smh, Roy was hurt with a wrist injury for the first half the season, and he even admitted to such after the year, but it healed sometime about halfway through the season. Roy even averaged 16/8 post all-star break on above 50% shooting. If we get the Roy from 12-13, we are getting a great defensive, and a good offensive center who will be an all-star, its as simple as that.

                        Comment


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

                          I want Lance back don't get me wrong, but I just can't ignore the possibility of us actually being better off without Lance which is why I will be disappointed if we go above 5/44 for him. He is a risk, we may need him to take the next step, or we may be better off without him. Without Lance, we will likely go back to the feed the post mindset, and inside-out game we used to play before Lance/PG took over the offense, and George Hill, a natural scorer, will now have a much bigger responsibility in that department, scoring. I want Lance back yes i'll take the risk, but anything above 5/44 is just too much for me.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                            I want Lance back don't get me wrong, but I just can't ignore the possibility of us actually being better off without Lance which is why I will be disappointed if we go above 5/44 for him. He is a risk, we may need him to take the next step, or we may be better off without him. Without Lance, we will likely go back to the feed the post mindset, and inside-out game we used to play before Lance/PG took over the offense, and George Hill, a natural scorer, will now have a much bigger responsibility in that department, scoring. I want Lance back yes i'll take the risk, but anything above 5/44 is just too much for me.
                            I agree with most of this except I wouldn't mind paying him a little more if we can find a way to do so. I would be happy to have Lance back but I'm also intrigued to see how we look without him, especially if we make a move or two.

                            Comment


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

                              I know that I have kind of dogged on Lance a little lately but I do hope we get to keep him as a part of our team. However I don't think he is irreplaceable and I think we have a strong team with or without him. I think we need a good training camp to get re-focused and get our new guys into our schemes and hopefully figure out how we can have Lance and Roy play better together. With that said I would be very interested in what Charlotte offers Lance and would come back with a max offer closer to the 5/50 mil range. After seeing the other contracts thrown around that is not as bad as I originally thought. If they come back and offer him something in the 12 mil a year range in Charlotte I wish him the best of luck. I really don't see MJ able to keep him reeled in as well as Larry and not having West there will hurt his maturity as well.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by eldubious View Post
                                So Charlotte offers 9 or 10 million a year for 2 or 3 years and that leaves about 20 million dollars on the table. How can an agent or player justify that?
                                I think that Lance will want to opt out after his 3rd year....so I think that anything beyond that is just icing on the cake. My guess is that Lance and his Agent are so confident in his abilities that he is looking at the short term when it comes to getting the most guaranteed $$$ that he can get in 3 years so that he can opt out and get a much more lucrative contract. Heck, I can even see him just look for a guaranteed 2 year deal and then opt out after Year 3 just to look for more $$ in the long term.

                                Maybe this is one of the reasons why he is so lukewarm about committing to a 5 year deal with the Pacers....he doesn't want to be locked up for so long. Even if there is a 4th year opt out option....the guaranteed $$$ after the 2nd or 3rd Year in a 5 Year / $44 mil deal is less when compared to guaranteed $$$ after the 2nd or 3rd Year in a 4 year Deal / $44 deal.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X