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

  • #91
    Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

    Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
    not once has anyone said we will be a horrible team without Lance... We will be by far a significantly worse team and while a lot of teams in the East are getting stronger losing Lance would would put us in a deep hole
    This team was closer to making the NBA finals with Lance playing a glue-guy role. This team was closer to making the NBA finals with Lance not putting up nearly the same kind of numbers as he did last season. We were closer to making the NBA finals when Lance was playing a role that is extremely replaceable. Hill put up better numbers, with less usage, when he was playing the second wing scorer role. But yes we will be significantly worse without Lance.

    Depending on who we replace Lance with we may be worse, or we may be better. Unless Hibbert's falling of the face of the Earth continues (which I doubt) we won't be significantly worse. The only two players we can lose and be significantly worse by losing are Hibbert (by losing I do include falling off the face of the Earth) and George. Lance, Hill, and West you can replace. Lance you can replace with Hill. Hill you can replace with Lance. West, not sure who you would replace him with off the top of my head, but you can (and probably for cheaper than $12 million).

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

      Originally posted by timid View Post
      Who said we were horrible? We're saying we're not a title contender, and we're not without him....I'm not sure if we get out of the 1st or 2nd round without him honestly.....
      Exactly. Putting words into peoples' mouth doesn't make for a good argument. No one said that. We aren't contenders without him. We barely made it out of the first round with him. I don't see how that's not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
      Dear P_George,
      You have received an infraction at Pacers Digest.

      Reason: Unacceptable Comment and/or Content

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        We're somewhere in lala land when people are saying that without Lance we're a horrible team. Sucks that we're paying that one guy in the supermax range because he, you know, made multiple all-NBA teams and was an All-Star starter. What was his name again? Should have given that money to Lance.
        Ron Herbert or something?

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

          Originally posted by clownskull View Post
          well, i think the offer was more than fair. if he thinks getting an extra million a year is worth going to a team that will struggle every night against everyone, then so be it.
          Which is exactly what happened to Pierre Garcon leaving Indianapolis for a million more per year to go to Washington. Could have stayed in the city that gave you the best opportunity, with a better quarterback and been on a consistent winner (outside of that flukey 2012 Redskins season).

          He did what he thought what was best, but it's still sour grapes for me. And I'll probably be a baby about it if Lance takes a slightly bigger deal elsewhere.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            We're somewhere in lala land when people are saying that without Lance we're a horrible team. Sucks that we're paying that one guy in the supermax range because he, you know, made multiple all-NBA teams and was an All-Star starter. What was his name again? Should have given that money to Lance.

            I don't think too many people around here have a problem with the PG contract. He is a great player and that had to be done. It's the $34.8 million that we owe to West/Hibbert/Hill next year (and about $36 mil the year after if Hibbs doesn't opt out) that is the true nuisance here. Lance might very well be better than all three of those players next season. I get the Hibbert contract, but it seems that we pretty much bid against ourselves with West and especially Hill.

            Paying Chris Copeland $3.1 mil for his courtside seat and $4 million to Mahinmi to be incompetent at offense is pretty annoying too when we're talking about these fine LT lines.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

              Originally posted by P_George View Post
              Exactly. Putting words into peoples' mouth doesn't make for a good argument. No one said that. We aren't contenders without him. We barely made it out of the first round with him. I don't see how that's not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
              Cause if you watched the Pacers the last two seasons you should be able to realize there was a correlation between how Hibbert played, and how the Pacers played. While there was little to no correlation with Lance. Lance's affect on winning or losing was minimal compared to Hibbert or Paul. Compared to those two he isn't all that important to this team winning.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                With all fairness to Lance:

                George Hill makes $8 million and now C.J. Miles makes $4.5 million.

                Is Lance superior to Hill? Yes.
                Is Lance twice the player of C.J. Miles. Yes and Yes.

                Hill and Hibbert have a bad contract. With the exception that Roy is a rare commodity, I would say that there is a baseline that has been established by Hill. He should have received a $6 million dollar contract.
                Last edited by 1984; 07-02-2014, 03:55 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  We absolutely do not want to move Hibbert period if we lose Lance.
                  Find a pass first pg that is willing to get the ball into the paint and move Hill to sg.
                  At worst we move Scola to a team that is trying to clear cap space with his team option contract for that same pg then sign a backup 4.
                  No matter what I don't want to see Hibbert moved this summer especially while his value is low.
                  while i want roy gone, i also don't want him moved while his value is at it's absolute lowest. it will go back up again soon enough regardless of how he plays this upcoming season.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    This team was closer to making the NBA finals with Lance playing a glue-guy role. This team was closer to making the NBA finals with Lance not putting up nearly the same kind of numbers as he did last season. We were closer to making the NBA finals when Lance was playing a role that is extremely replaceable. Hill put up better numbers, with less usage, when he was playing the second wing scorer role. But yes we will be significantly worse without Lance.
                    We were one game closer to making the NBA Finals in 2013 because Roy Hibbet was playing like Hakeem Olajuwon while Dwyane Wade was a washed up corpse. The tables were turned in 2014 when Hibbert disappeared like a mouse fart in a hurricane and Dwyane Wade played more like his old self. Lance having a more enhanced role was not anywhere near why this team wasn't as good as last year's team that played Miami.

                    The best this team has ever looked over the last few years was when they were 33-7 and genuinely considered to the best team in the league. And that was with Lance playing like an all-star. Lance's enhanced play added a new element to the team. In the second half of the season, he definitely let too much hype get to his head, but the main reason the team wasn't the same is because Hibbert completely collapsed.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-02-2014, 03:49 PM.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      Cause if you watched the Pacers the last two seasons you should be able to realize there was a correlation between how Hibbert played, and how the Pacers played. While there was little to no correlation with Lance. Lance's affect on winning or losing was minimal compared to Hibbert or Paul. Compared to those two he isn't all that important to this team winning.
                      And Lance has a lot of natural talent and you're banking on him improving and playing better in the team concept. I'd say in the Playoffs this season he was more impactful then any other Pacer. Yes, we lost, but even if Roy played well we would lose to Miami. The point is, we're losing out on a guy who is still young and improving and basically getting nothing in exchange. I don't see how you can see this roster the way it's constructed and say, "Yep, they're real contenders."
                      Dear P_George,
                      You have received an infraction at Pacers Digest.

                      Reason: Unacceptable Comment and/or Content

                      Comment


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

                        Not that I am thrilled with losing Lance, but if him being gone means we get to see a more aggressive George Hill I am happy with that.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by 1984 View Post

                          Hill. He should have received a $6 million dollar contract.

                          Thank you!! I've been saying that for 2 years. AND to think the Pacers only have 3 more years of Hill's contract!!! Thank you Mr. Walsh.

                          Comment


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

                            I'm hearing lance wants $10 mil a year and out of the 3 other teams interested in him.. There's only one that would likely pull the trigger on that. IMO it's the worst case scenario. The Bulls. Losing Lance will really hurt the dynamics of the Pacers possibilities on offense, he's like LeBron when it comes to driving to the basket, he's practically unstoppable and he's adding that 3 pt shot too. I hope he stays because if he goes, especially to Chicago, we will be paying for it for years to come. However, if we can lock him up for 5 years, those are likely going to be the best 5 years of his career and we will be a championship contender with him and PG24 together.

                            Losing Lance is a huge deal. One that we can recover from, but there will have to be a lot of changes to recover from it quickly. I hope he changes his mind.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              We're somewhere in lala land when people are saying that without Lance we're a horrible team. Sucks that we're paying that one guy in the supermax range because he, you know, made multiple all-NBA teams and was an All-Star starter. What was his name again? Should have given that money to Lance.
                              Just in case this was directed at me... I didn't say our team without Lance would be "horrible" I said it's bye bye with the title aspirations for the next couple of years IMHO. Maybe being in the post season and merely beying a bit of an obstacle for the contenders is what makes you enthousiastic. I can tell you it wouldnt do it for me. I want this franchise to always strive for the top.

                              Goodluck with our backcourt that remains (if Lance leaves) plus a random MLE player that gets added. I just don't see it. AT. ALL. Unless its a player that has the potential to breakout with us, but that means said player hasnt done that elsewhere during his rookie contract, previous multiple contracts or went undrafted/didn't get a quaranteed contract... all that screams "risk" much more to me then trying to keep Lance.

                              Not for 5/60 milion or something, but we have to do what we can and is sound for our title aspirations. Losing him for nothing or some worthless S&T (hi there, Scott Pollard!) would be a move that I believe will haunt us long into the future.
                              Last edited by Mourning; 07-02-2014, 04:52 PM.
                              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                Thank you!! I've been saying that for 2 years. AND to think the Pacers only have 3 more years of Hill's contract!!! Thank you Mr. Walsh.
                                He would have left, and then we would have been stuck with out a PG or Darren Collision starting again. It's like you think we can just pick up a starting PG of the street and put him in the one of the best starting 5's in the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X