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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
    There have also been reports that have said neither the Bulls nor Hornets have interest in Lance right now. Miami reportedly offered him something around MLE type of money. Im not making things up lol. Meanwhile the other wings on the market have had teams reaching out and meeting with their agents. I'm not saying they couldn't be doing the same with Lance but its been awfully quiet for someone that some individuals see as a marquee FA.

    Eventually we will see where Lance's market lies within the league


    Lance isn't rushing it and why should he? I doubt he's gonna be excited to play another season with a passionless PG like Hill, and a slow un-athletic big man like Hibbert. You're crazy if you think "some" of this hold out isn't about the pieces Lance will be surrounded with in the next 4 years.

    Comment


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

      Or maybe what we do if Lance walks is sign someone like Jameer Nelson as a backup point guard, move CJ to point guard and hill to SG.

      CJ/Nelson/Sloan
      Hill/Miles
      George/Hill/Rudez
      West/Scola/Lavoy
      Hibbert/Mahinmi/White Center that I forget the name off

      Comment


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

        Lance is a real talent. If you "replace" him with some plodder be prepared for the team to take a step back. If he leaves he needs to be replaced by a near all-star to remain atop the East. And if you do replace him with Dragic or Rondo but have to lose Hibbert or West to get him... then again we lose pace. It's hard to see us NOT take a step backwards. Turner or Scola needed to be big for us. With both of those flaming out we have holes and few options.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by solid View Post
          Lance is a real talent. If you "replace" him with some plodder be prepared for the team to take a step back. If he leaves he needs to be replaced by a near all-star to remain atop the East. And if you do replace him with Dragic or Rondo but have to lose Hibbert or West to get him... then again we lose pace. It's hard to see us NOT take a step backwards. Turner or Scola needed to be big for us. With both of those flaming out we have holes and few options.

          Plenty of "flaming out" to go around. Every starter can take partial responsibility as well. Don't kid yourself, there were plenty of games where Lance just disappeared. Sure some people under-rate Lance, but there are also plenty that over-rate him.

          Comment


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

            Don't buy the 'headache' tag for Lance anymore. Bird, Pritchard, Simon wouldn't offer that kind of money and time to a guy with a chance to be the next Artest. I think Lance will more than likely get an offer or two for more money but less years and it will be a decision he will have to make. Granted, the sooner this happens, the better for the Pacers. But not necessarily for Lance. I Jordon is interested in Cha., I look for him to wait until the last week or two of FA to make his move. 3 weeks from now 4/36 probably gets Lance with a TO on year 4. Might work out better for LS if that is the structure of the deal. Give him time to show his strength away from the Pacers and be a UFA at age 27?

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              provided 3 of those smart unselfish guys are going to be HOFers
              Of course you need great players. The question posed is what does it take to win without having the very best player in the league.

              The fact is, the Spurs have never had the very best player in the league....and the Spurs are the only team in recent memory...maybe ever...that won multiple championships without ever having the very best player in the league.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                And that to me makes it far less likely that Lance is nearly as bad as many claim. I'm just taking my cues from the people in the know. And nothing they have done suggest a Lance is a real issue on this team.

                He is not getting in trouble off the court.

                He is not showing signs of severe mental illness like Ron.

                He is not hanging out in the worst neighborhoods in the city like Jamal Tinsley.

                He is not walking out of practice like JO.

                He is not uncoachable like Stephen Jackson.

                In fact he is probably the hardest working guy on the team. He is always in the gym, trying to get better.
                Yes, but he's as dense as granite and if you're selfish and your team mates don't like you it's not going to matter how good he is.

                Comment


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

                  Since it is Lance who thinks he's worth (a lot) more and Bird stated he would make a "fair" offer that Lance could take or leave I think we can be pretty sure it will be "leave" IF someone bids more, but if not, do you really want a player who thinks he's worth lots more than he's paid?

                  It is all about the money, and nothing else, fine with me, but don't pretend otherwise.

                  But let's make one thing clear; we were a good team last season (I would say better in the 2nd half than this year) and we were good until the AS break, when LS got snubbed, Lance is good, he has talent but whether he's a team player I seriously doubt and we can certainly be just as good without him if he's replaced by a team orientated person.
                  We have enough stars on this team to cover for him.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                  Comment


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





                    I don't get these numbers - could anyone shed some light (esp. the $ 15,445,570 seems strange)?
                    Last edited by Miller-Time; 07-05-2014, 02:56 PM.
                    Restore the Passion - Restore the Pride

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by solid View Post
                      Lance is a real talent. If you "replace" him with some plodder be prepared for the team to take a step back. If he leaves he needs to be replaced by a near all-star to remain atop the East. And if you do replace him with Dragic or Rondo but have to lose Hibbert or West to get him... then again we lose pace. It's hard to see us NOT take a step backwards. Turner or Scola needed to be big for us. With both of those flaming out we have holes and few options.
                      I agree and I have defended Lance for months if not years now. I went back and forth with Sookie and Ace for a long time. I saw his talent and noticed he wasn't in the news after several years...so I had hope. I found it idiotic that people thought Granger was going to be a better player this year and should start over Lance.

                      But I have come to believe that Lance is a big part of the chemistry issue with this team. A big part of why the team fell apart. If he is a chemistry issue, why keep him? Also, for his supporters, why did the Pacers short him on that contract?...and do you really believe after spending 18M on another SG isn't a sign? Do you really think CJ Miles is replacing Evan Turner and that it's just a matter of time before the Pacers sign Lance? Recall that we didn't have the money to retain both Turner and Lance.

                      Edit: I just thanked Able. The fact we agree means it has to be correct.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-05-2014, 02:57 PM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I agree and I have defended Lance for months if not years now. I went back and forth with Sookie and Ace for a long time. I saw his talent and noticed he wasn't in the news after several years...so I had hope. I found it idiotic that people thought Granger was going to be a better player this year and should start over Lance.

                        But I have come to believe that Lance is a big part of the chemistry issue with this team. A big part of why the team fell apart. If he is a chemistry issue, why keep him? Also, for his supporters, why did the Pacers short him on that contract?...and do you really believe after spending 18M on another SG isn't a sign? Do you really think CJ Miles is replacing Evan Turner and that it's just a matter of time before the Pacers sign Lance? Recall that we didn't have the money to retain both Turner and Lance.

                        Edit: I just thanked Able. The fact we agree means it has to be correct.
                        People have expected Lance to get an 8-9 million dollar offer all season. Its always been seen as about the most we can afford. Its not an insulting offer. Its also not insulting for Lance to shop around. We just need to patiently wait for Lebron and company to sign. At this point it could go either way. The same people that want him gone now, wanted him gone regardless of the offer. Hell, most the h*****s :-) wanted him gone as a rookie.

                        If Miles was the proof, we wouldn't be hearing about Allen's contract having zero effect on Lances standing offer.

                        I also wonder if Lance was offered a player option.
                        Last edited by spazzxb; 07-05-2014, 03:22 PM.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                          People have expected Lance to get an 8-9 million dollar offer all season. Its always been seen as about the most we can afford. Its not an insulting offer. Its also not insulting for Lance to shop around. We just need to patiently wait for Lebron and company to sign. At this point it could go either way. The same people that want him gone now, wanted him gone regardless of the offer. Hell, most the h*****s :-) wanted him gone as a rookie.

                          If Miles was the proof, we wouldn't be hearing about Allen's contract having zero effect on Lances standing offer.
                          Lance's standing offer isn't the issue. It's whether the team could match a higher offer after these recent signings and now it's not likely. The team has clearly drawn a line in the sand on what they will pay Lance and it's probably lower because of things they know about in terms of how he gets along with team mates. It is what it is. He's very talented but so was Stephon Marbury, another Lincoln high moron.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I agree and I have defended Lance for months if not years now. I went back and forth with Sookie and Ace for a long time. I saw his talent and noticed he wasn't in the news after several years...so I had hope. I found it idiotic that people thought Granger was going to be a better player this year and should start over Lance.

                            But I have come to believe that Lance is a big part of the chemistry issue with this team. A big part of why the team fell apart. If he is a chemistry issue, why keep him? Also, for his supporters, why did the Pacers short him on that contract?...and do you really believe after spending 18M on another SG isn't a sign? Do you really think CJ Miles is replacing Evan Turner and that it's just a matter of time before the Pacers sign Lance? Recall that we didn't have the money to retain both Turner and Lance.

                            Edit: I just thanked Able. The fact we agree means it has to be correct.
                            You can't let a talent like Lance walk for nothing on the assumption that he's causing chemistry issues. Pay the man and try to work those issues out if they really are there, move on if they can't be fixed, he's way too talented to not at least try and I'm sure the team gets that.

                            I can't answer why the Pacers shorted him on the contract, but I bet getting CJ was a part of the plan all along whether we got Lance or not. Back up wing was the worst spot on our team last year, we desperately need an upgrade there. Rasual Butler was our third best wing all year and probably the best we've had there since what, Dunleavy?

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Goyle View Post
                              You can't let a talent like Lance walk for nothing on the assumption that he's causing chemistry issues. Pay the man and try to work those issues out if they really are there, move on if they can't be fixed, he's way too talented to not at least try and I'm sure the team gets that.

                              I can't answer why the Pacers shorted him on the contract, but I bet getting CJ was a part of the plan all along whether we got Lance or not. Back up wing was the worst spot on our team last year, we desperately need an upgrade there. Rasual Butler was our third best wing all year and probably the best we've had there since what, Dunleavy?
                              I think they have and are still trying. What concerns me is if they can't make him a team player his 44M contract sets the team back quite a long time and pretty much wastes PGs and everyone else's efforts to play as a team. With a 2 year opt out clause I would sign him in a minute.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Miller-Time View Post




                                I don't get these numbers - could anyone shed some light (esp. the $ 15,445,570 seems strange)?
                                The important thing to remember is that the Pacers won't go into the tax, which means they can't go above the projected $77M. That's where the 5 years, $15,445,570 comes from. The Pacers have about $74M tied up in contracts with Lavoy included, which leaves about $3M in room for this season to stay under the cap. Then that number is projected in a five year contract for Lance, but the important thing is what we have available currently to stay under the tax, which is the $3M or so.

                                That's why Lance's current standing offer is a problem, because if he chooses to accept, it necessitates significant moves to wiggle under the luxury tax. Curiously, the Pacers have already said (according to Candace) that they're not looking to move Scola. Either they know Lance isn't coming back and they're moving on or they have trades lined up to release some cap pressure. Because 1) 5/15M won't get it done for Lance and 2) The Pacers aren't paying the tax.
                                2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X