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 3rdStrike View Post
    I can't believe I'm reading this. You'd rather have a guy who does destructive things to the team's chances of winning than a guy who has poor body language?
    I didn't know what Lance did was constructive towards winning games. In that case yes, I want a player who stops playing in the middle of the game just because he doesn't get passed the ball once.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

      OMG Roy Hibbert was upset that he was benched he is the worst teammate ever.


      Yes, pouting on the bench one time in a 6 year career is worse than pouting on the floor every couple of games. In what world is this equivalent?
      It was more than once. Remember the times West and others would try to talk to him about it on the bench?

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        I didn't know what Lance did was constructive towards winning games. In that case yes, I want a player who stops playing in the middle of the game just because he doesn't get passed the ball once.
        Now you're twisting his words to suit your argument. He didn't say Lance's behavior was constructive. He said the other actions were destructive. Pretty big difference in my opinion. Talking in the media is destructive as you shouldn't air your laundry in public. Bad shots can alter a game drastically in the moment. Often, Lance's poor body language gets him yanked, and he calms down after a bit on the bench. It isn't a positive attribute, but it isn't nearly as destructive as the other two in my opinion.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          I didn't know what Lance did was constructive towards winning games. In that case yes, I want a player who stops playing in the middle of the game just because he doesn't get passed the ball once.
          You've got to be kidding. Lance pouts and has awful body language... but stops playing in the middle of the game? Get real, dude.

          Anyway if we don't get Lance we better not end up with Evan Turner. That's going to be hard to watch. Does anyone know what happens to our MLE if CJ Miles is acquired in a sign and trade? Because if getting Miles in a trade means our MLE is freed up that can be huge in finding an okay replacement.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by pogi View Post
            I way I read it, it seems you're calling out Lance for doing it more than the others; which, if that's the case, I disagree
            Everybody on the team was inconsistent last year and that includes Lance. Not saying he was more inconsistent, just that IMO he will always be good Lance/bad Lance.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
              Everybody on the team was inconsistent last year and that includes Lance. Not saying he was more inconsistent, just that IMO he will always be good Lance/bad Lance.
              Agree

              Comment


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

                For what it's worth, a friend of mine spotted Lance in the Castleton Mall today wearing a Bulls hat and matching red and black attire. Could it be a sign of what's to come? Or just an opportunity to wear an outfit he previously would feel bad for wearing? You be the judge.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                  For what it's worth, a friend of mine spotted Lance in the Castleton Mall today wearing a Bulls hat and matching red and black attire. Could it be a sign of what's to come? Or just an opportunity to wear an outfit he previously would feel bad for wearing? You be the judge.
                  This is just Lance being Lance in my judgment. This probably means very little, he is just styling.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                    For what it's worth, a friend of mine spotted Lance in the Castleton Mall today wearing a Bulls hat and matching red and black attire. Could it be a sign of what's to come? Or just an opportunity to wear an outfit he previously would feel bad for wearing? You be the judge.
                    Im already preparing for him to be gone, i'll be more surprised if he returned.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                      Please, Im begging you, show me the "take it or leave it" quote. I have yet to see that.

                      If you're talking about the "if it ain't enough, it ain't enough" quote, that was from an anonymous source, that is most definitely open to interpretation. It does NOT mean, take it or leave it.

                      The problem here is all the random stuff said like its fact with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Like......

                      His teammates don't like him.

                      This is one I find rather irritating, because unless you've spoken directly to his team mates, you would not know this. Noone has ever said they don't like him. The only things they've said were that he annoys them at times with things he does. As I'm sure a LOT of young players do that.

                      He causes problems in the locker room.

                      Again, noone knows this for certain. In fact, one could just as easily argue Roy Hibbert causes more problems in the locker room. He has openly criticized the coach, his team mates and pulled the Allen Iverson routine complaining about his touches. I have never heard any of this kind of stuff from Lance Stephenson. In fact the complaints lobbied towards him regarding his play, have been answered with consistent effort to fix it, from Lance. He had times where he was out of control, and there were other times he reeled it in.

                      He's selfish and not a team player.

                      Again what is this based on? He has never made me feel like hes a selfish player what so ever. Does he get irritated with his team mates? Absolutely. Just like they get irritated with him. Is he more animated about it than most people? Most definitely. Some people are like that, you can read their mood just by looking at them. He also is the first guy off the bench to congratulate them. And he is also very animated when doing that as well. It's who he is. I think it's mostly based on his style of play. He is a dribble drive player so sometimes he spends too much time looking for an opening. But he's also extremely young and will learn.

                      And again, someone please tell me why in the world the Pacers, of all the teams in the league given their history, are trying to sign him at all, if he is the kind of dude you think he is?

                      If he is truly that guy, he definitely ain't worth 8-9 million dollars, and I wouldn't bat an eye if he left. But I don't think he is that guy at all. I think he's gonna be a superstar player, better than Paul George, who I think is a damn good player himself.

                      Also, you have to keep in mind that we don't play Lance's style WHAT SO EVER. He is an open court player, and one of the best in basketball on the fast break, and we don't run AT ALL. And despite that, he has played very well and been a key guy on a pretty good team, in each of his first two years. He is still learning to play in the half court, and IMO is way ahead of the curve. I'm not sure what you all expect from a 23 year old with very few flaws in his game? Perfection?

                      Coming into the league his only real weaknesses besides his body and questionable character, were his outside shot and decision making. And he has made tremendous strides in every one of those areas. Lance wants to be a great basketball player, and he is willing to put in the work to become one. The attitude you all see out on the court during the game, is the same attitude that has gotten him where he is. It's not gonna change, and personally I don't want it to. We need more of it.
                      Defend Lance all you wish. I am not saying I don't want him back, I do, but at the right price.

                      Who the heck do you think Roy's "selfish dudes" comment was pointed to?

                      Multiple times this year Lance moped back to the bench when being taken out of the game. Guess what Ginobli did when he was at the scorers table ready to check in during the finals when Pop called him back? Yep, just jogged back.

                      Lance took crazy shots and played selfishly at times because he was ticked about not making the All Star Game and to boost up stats for free agent money. Many have pointed out his "stolen" rebounds.

                      Do I want Lance back? You bet. Young guys with this talent don't come around every day. But do I want to break the bank, mortgage the future, and give Lance a deal that makes him virtually untradeable if he goes crazy? Heck no. 8-9 million is my personal limit with him. Any more than that he can pack his bags.

                      I don't understand why some people defend EVERYTHING this guy has brought to the table. Is it possible to think Lance is a good talent and want him back but acknowledge that he does bring some negative aspects to the team?

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                        For what it's worth, a friend of mine spotted Lance in the Castleton Mall today wearing a Bulls hat and matching red and black attire. Could it be a sign of what's to come? Or just an opportunity to wear an outfit he previously would feel bad for wearing? You be the judge.
                        With Mirotic coming in to Chicago, even if we don't know the exact terms of the deal yet, I am not sure if they could afford Lance as well even if they amnesty Boozer. I am not an expert on the Bulls cap space though and I can't find anything online that addresses this specifically.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                          For what it's worth, a friend of mine spotted Lance in the Castleton Mall today wearing a Bulls hat and matching red and black attire. Could it be a sign of what's to come? Or just an opportunity to wear an outfit he previously would feel bad for wearing? You be the judge.
                          He probably has to shop at Goodwill until he gets that new contract. That's probably the only matching outfit he could afford. Where else could he afford to shop at on only 900k per year?

                          /green
                          Last edited by Believe_in_blue; 07-05-2014, 10:45 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                            For what it's worth, a friend of mine spotted Lance in the Castleton Mall today wearing a Bulls hat and matching red and black attire. Could it be a sign of what's to come? Or just an opportunity to wear an outfit he previously would feel bad for wearing? You be the judge.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              Damnit Paul

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                He's looking a little fat in this picture lol. I'm sure he's not really, just the angle or something, but I wasn't sure it was PG for a few seconds for that reason

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X