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 Dr. Awesome View Post
    He isn't going to before the big names sign, after teams miss out on those guys they will panic and throw money at Stephenson. It would be stupid for him to sign before LeBron, Melo, ect, all sign.
    Maybe, but what is Dallas waiting on if they actually want him? Boston? Only thing I can think of Dallas waiting on is that they may want to try for Wade if Bosh and Lebron both leave.


    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      I'm just not convinced he's going to get the offer he's searching for at this point.
      When Channing Frye got 32 million over 4 years, it had to give Lance and his agent hope. That was some serious overpaying for a 1-dimensional 31 year old "stretch 5" , so why not Lance?
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        He isn't going to before the big names sign, after teams miss out on those guys they will panic and throw money at Stephenson. It would be stupid for him to sign before LeBron, Melo, ect, all sign.
        Maybe we'll hear something soon about What LeBron is going to do, he made his big "decision" on July 8th 2010 to take his talents to South Beach.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          When Channing Frye got 32 million over 4 years, it had to give Lance and his agent hope. That was some serious overpaying for a 1-dimensional 31 year old "stretch 5" , so why not Lance?
          Once they found out the Magic had no interest in him, he became sad and frowned...
          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

          ----------------- Reggie Miller

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
            Where does this leave Parsons? Man...I would love to have Parsons on the Pacers though I know it's not realistic.
            Parsons will be signed by the Rockets as soon as they finish the rest of their free agency signings. Parsons has a very low cap hold number, a little less than $2M. Since the Rockets are going to sign him for much more than that, it is better cap management to keep the lower number on the cap instead of the final salary. Parsons will get paid by the Rockets. Odds are they have already come to an agreement.

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Did someone post what Lance's starting salary would be under the 5 year / $44 mil contract offer?

            If it's just straight up flat....then I know that it's $8.8 mil a year for 5 years.

            But I don't know what it would be with the standard raises over the 5 years. . .
            The $7.6M number is the beginning salary with the standard 7.5% raises. The raises will be about 570K per year. So something like $7.6M, $8.2M, $8.8M, $9.3M and $9.9M.

            PM me if you want a formula to calculate the first years salary given the number of years and the total salary amount.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Lance's free agency is a snooze fest.
              I hope it stays that way!

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Maybe, but what is Dallas waiting on if they actually want him? Boston? Only thing I can think of Dallas waiting on is that they may want to try for Wade if Bosh and Lebron both leave.
              I thought those were pretty obvious plants by his agent. Neither team really made sense, other than for asset collection. Still have a wary eye out on Chicago. Charlotte is still possible, I think, it's just that they (rightly) are looking to Hayward first.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Don't worry. Not too long until we hear the weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, recriminations, and sounds of thousands of tiny doors hitting thousands of Pacer 'fans' butts as they leave the building.
                You make it seem like people should be excited at the prospect of losing an awesome young talent.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  You make it seem like people should be excited at the prospect of losing an awesome young talent.
                  For me it's all about if we actually have a plan B, if we don't the prospect of starting the season wtih CJ Miles at the starting 2 is a bit nausea inducing. Lance was our second best player last year, we either need to keep him or find a way to replace him. It's that simple. I think Bird understands that.


                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    You make it seem like people should be excited at the prospect of losing an awesome young talent.
                    It's that I don't think people should tear their hair out and declare the team to be a total loss for multiple years if the future (cap, draft picks, and flexibility) isn't mortgaged for that single young talent.

                    It's always funny to me how people scream for GMs to make changes because change never has a downside ... well, unless the thing they personally want to stay the same changes, in which case how could any GM be so stupid as to not see that change is the Wrong Thing.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      It's that I don't think people should tear their hair out and declare the team to be a total loss for multiple years if the future (cap, draft picks, and flexibility) isn't mortgaged for that single young talent.

                      It's always funny to me how people scream for GMs to make changes because change never has a downside ... well, unless the thing they personally want to stay the same changes, in which case how could any GM be so stupid as to not see that change is the Wrong Thing.
                      I don't think many people think that the team would be a total loss if Lance leaves. It would still easily make the playoffs with a relatively high seed next year, but in no way shape or form would it be as talented. Given that one of the most important players on the team, David West, is entering the twilight of his career, the long term future of PG's supporting cast would start to look pretty questionable. Keeping Lance isn't just about next season. It's about keeping a talented young piece that can grow with PG for many years to come.

                      Also, losing Lance for nothing isn't a "change"......it's a loss. A change would be if we were trading Lance for another really talented player. Lance leaving for nothing is just a sizable loss of talent.

                      And it's not that people don't have faith in the front office, it's just that our hands are really tied financially with the PG/Hibbert/West/Hill core. Hibbert and Hill probably wouldn't fetch anything that great at the moment.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I don't think many people think that the team would be a total loss if Lance leaves. It would still easily make the playoffs with a relatively high seed next year, but in no way shape or form would it be as talented. Given that one of the most important players on the team, David West, is entering the twilight of his career, the long term future of PG's supporting cast would start to look pretty questionable. Keeping Lance isn't just about next season. It's about keeping a talented young piece that can grow with PG for many years to come.

                        Also, losing Lance for nothing isn't a "change"......it's a loss. A change would be if we were trading Lance for another really talented player. Lance leaving for nothing is just a sizable loss of talent.

                        And it's not that people don't have faith in the front office, it's just that our hands are really tied financially with the PG/Hibbert/West/Hill core. Hibbert and Hill probably wouldn't fetch anything that great at the moment.
                        Most of this is perfectly reasonable (though I wish people would understand that the definition of FA is that you get nothing when they go elsewhere - just like you don't have to give up anything to sign one. The whole idea that you need to trade an FA before he gets good enough to outprice you - or figure out how to get someone to do an S&T when it isn't really in any player's interest to do that on their first post-rookie contract - is limiting).

                        But you can't deny there are folks out there basing the success or failure of this offseason (and the team) solely on the ability to re-sign Lance at whatever cost, and that there's no plan B other than "being the Hawks".
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Maybe, but what is Dallas waiting on if they actually want him? Boston? Only thing I can think of Dallas waiting on is that they may want to try for Wade if Bosh and Lebron both leave.
                          Dallas is waiting on Melo-drama, LeDecision and TagAlong situations to clear up. I'm guessing that they maybe out of the picture.....but maybe they are waiting to see if there are any opportunities to be had when Teams are forced to make moves to clear Cap Space.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            For me it's all about if we actually have a plan B, if we don't the prospect of starting the season wtih CJ Miles at the starting 2 is a bit nausea inducing. Lance was our second best player last year, we either need to keep him or find a way to replace him. It's that simple. I think Bird understands that.
                            I really hope that CJ2 isn't Plan B. I think that he'd be a quality 1st Wing off the bench.....but we won't be as good if he's in the Starting Lineup. Given that we are right up against the LT ceiling now.....our options are limited if Lance is not re-signed. At most; we'd be making lateral moves with Players like Copeland or Mahinmi. Even if Hibbert is moved....I'm not expecting a good return if he's traded.

                            As you said.....I hope that CJ2 isn't plan B.....but at this point...I'm not holding out any hope.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I don't think many people think that the team would be a total loss if Lance leaves. It would still easily make the playoffs with a relatively high seed next year, but in no way shape or form would it be as talented. Given that one of the most important players on the team, David West, is entering the twilight of his career, the long term future of PG's supporting cast would start to look pretty questionable. Keeping Lance isn't just about next season. It's about keeping a talented young piece that can grow with PG for many years to come.

                              Also, losing Lance for nothing isn't a "change"......it's a loss. A change would be if we were trading Lance for another really talented player. Lance leaving for nothing is just a sizable loss of talent.

                              And it's not that people don't have faith in the front office, it's just that our hands are really tied financially with the PG/Hibbert/West/Hill core. Hibbert and Hill probably wouldn't fetch anything that great at the moment.
                              I compare it to when Brad Miller left for the Kings and we got Pollard. We lost more talented player, but the team was better the next year, when we won 61 games and Foster moved into the starting lineup. With the coaching change and Foster replacing Brad, we became a singificantly better defensive team. Granted we aren't coaching coaches 10 years later, but we can look back and see how just because we lose talent, doesn't mean the team will be worse.

                              Let's just say for sake of discussion Lance leaves and CJ Miles is the starting 2 guard. That will force George Hill to be much more aggressive - which is a good thing. We still have our borderline superstar player. Ball movement should be better. Plus I aqm not expecting to lose Lance and get nothing back - certainly not as much talent.

                              One other important point, if the same exact team is brought back I am not expecting anywhere near a 33-7 start, in fact I fear a lot worse. I think Lance is the primary reason our chemistry turned bad late in the season - maybe not his fault, but still. Without him our chemistry is a lot better.

                              I might be crazy, but I don't fear losing Lance at all. I believe either you build around Lance or PG otherwise you try to pull through the next couple of seasons while you decide if those two can thrive together.

                              Having said all this, I still wouldn't be surprised if there is a major trade if Lance leaves with only the core of West and PG to remain behind.
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-08-2014, 04:29 PM.

                              Comment


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

                                Foster was a good starting calibre player, he had an elite skill, perhaps the best offensive rebounder in the NBA those few years. Miles is good, but he doesn't have anything like that.

                                And I think the coaching change from Isaiah to Rick was a much bigger upgrade than Brad to Foster was a downgrade. That team would have been better with Miller than with Foster.

                                This team can't upgrade Vogel to offset the loss of Lance in any way. JMO.

                                We will still be very good, but if we lose Lance and don't pick up someone else we will be a worse team I think. Right around 50 wins.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X