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 Trader Joe View Post
    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.

    I know you were only 15 years old 11 years ago, but majority of Pacer fans thought Foster sucked in the summer of 2003. jeff certainly wasn't a sure thing at all not even close. Majority of fans didn't want or expect Foster to be our starter that next season. In fact we brought in the next starter for several years and Jeff always ended up beating them out by the time Christmas rolled around.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      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.
      Yep, it's important to nuance the differences between "losing value" from a talent perspective, and "losing basketball games".

      I think we ideally want to hold onto as much value as we can to stay competitive as a team over time, but sometimes, it's best to move on from talent from a chemistry perspective.

      I still think the best course of action is to try to build around George/Lance, but that'd mean we were in a good spot to move away from Hibbert, and that's not where we are this offseason.

      It'll be interesting.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        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.
        You left out the most important reason for the 2004 turnaround - Artest. That was the one year in which Artest managed to stay pretty sane all season. He was the true MVP of that team and was an absolute menace on the court, plus he really didn't have any issues until the very end of that Detroit series. As you mention, we also had a huge coaching change going form Thomas to Carlisle. Plus we didn't have the extracurricular distractions of the previous year (Artest flagrant fouls and didn't multiple players suffer family losses?).

        That being said, going from Brad Miller to Jeff Foster was still an extreme downgrade. Miller would have been plenty adequate at defense with Carlisle coaching. Replacing Brad Miller with Jeff Foster in the starting lineup was absolutely devastating to Jermaine O'Neal on the offensive side of the ball. JO's FG % dropped from 48.4% with Miller in 02-03 to 43.4% alongside Foster in 03-04. Losing 5% in just one season is pretty big, and it's no coincidence at all. When Brad Miller was around, opposing defenses obviously had to respect his offensive skills and couldn't really double JO with his man. But once we had Foster, opposing defenses had a lot more opportunity to double JO since Foster was such a limited offensive player. That finally caught up to us once Detroit acquired Sheed, who was absolutely awesome at defending JO. The Pistons absolutely smothered JO in that 04 ECF's because they sure as heck didn't have to respect Foster. It sure would have been nice to have Miller in that series since Detroit couldn't have just ignored him like they did Foster.

        That 03-04 team would have been even better with Brad Miller, not just because what Miller himself brought, but also because his mere presence made life immensely easier for Jermaine O'Neal.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by docpaul View Post
          Yep, it's important to nuance the differences between "losing value" from a talent perspective, and "losing basketball games".

          I think we ideally want to hold onto as much value as we can to stay competitive as a team over time, but sometimes, it's best to move on from talent from a chemistry perspective.

          I still think the best course of action is to try to build around George/Lance, but that'd mean we were in a good spot to move away from Hibbert, and that's not where we are this offseason.

          It'll be interesting.
          Certainly building around Lance and PG is a good approach. But as you mention I believe if you do that, then you do that 100%. And that means finishing the changing of the offense from a post up offense to a Lance and PG driven offense. Roy would need to be moved to open up the middle so PG and Lance could drive. West maybe could be kept as a bridge to the future. Our offense would need to look at lot like the Thunder's offense - that would be the model.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            We lost more talented player, but the team was better the next year
            I think the difference with Lance is that not only is he a more talented player than what we've acquired thus far, but Lance is a more dynamic player. I think we will notice his absence quite a bit if he's not brought back.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Our offense would need to look at lot like the Thunder's offense - that would be the model.
              Which is constantly criticized, btw.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                You left out the most important reason for the 2004 turnaround - Artest. That was the one year in which Artest managed to stay pretty sane all season. He was the true MVP of that team and was an absolute menace on the court, plus he really didn't have any issues until the very end of that Detroit series. As you mention, we also had a huge coaching change going form Thomas to Carlisle. Plus we didn't have the extracurricular distractions of the previous year (Artest flagrant fouls and didn't multiple players suffer family losses?).

                That being said, going from Brad Miller to Jeff Foster was still an extreme downgrade. Miller would have been plenty adequate at defense with Carlisle coaching. Replacing Brad Miller with Jeff Foster in the starting lineup was absolutely devastating to Jermaine O'Neal on the offensive side of the ball. JO's FG % dropped from 48.4% with Miller in 02-03 to 43.4% alongside Foster in 03-04. Losing 5% in just one season is pretty big, and it's no coincidence at all. When Brad Miller was around, opposing defenses obviously had to respect his offensive skills and couldn't really double JO with his man. But once we had Foster, opposing defenses had a lot more opportunity to double JO since Foster was such a limited offensive player. That finally caught up to us once Detroit acquired Sheed, who was absolutely awesome at defending JO. The Pistons absolutely smothered JO in that 04 ECF's because they sure as heck didn't have to respect Foster. It sure would have been nice to have Miller in that series since Detroit couldn't have just ignored him like they did Foster.

                That 03-04 team would have been even better with Brad Miller, not just because what Miller himself brought, but also because his mere presence made life immensely easier for Jermaine O'Neal.

                I don't disagree with anything you are posting here. We weren't better because of the loss of Brad, we were better in spite of the loss of Brad. But we were better overall. Other players got better, coaching was a lot better. Foster was a defensive upgrade over Brad. If CJ replaces Lance - our ball movement might be better for example - chemistry better for example.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Which is constantly criticized, btw.
                  without question. But isn't that what we would be looking at. Clear out the post-up offense, and play through lance and PG - what we started doing more and more last season and one big reason why our team struggled the second half of the year.

                  I'm not advocating for that. But I don't think we will have a hybrid of Roy and West post up with lance and PG. That I belivee as we saw last year will cause even greater chemistry issues going forward

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I don't disagree with anything you are posting here. We weren't better because of the loss of Brad, we were better in spite of the loss of Brad. But we were better overall. Other players got better, coaching was a lot better. Foster was a defensive upgrade over Brad. If CJ replaces Lance - our ball movement might be better for example - chemistry better for example.
                    True, there is no doubt that we were significantly better as a team in 04 than in 03. I just feel that some pretty drastic things happened to make that possible - Artest going sane, no off the court distractions, and going from a poor coach in Thomas to one of the best in the business in Carlisle. Will this current Pacer team be able to make such drastic strides in other areas to make up for a loss of Lance? I don't think there's any doubt that they would still be pretty good next season without Lance. We still have some very solid talent that can win plenty of games and get a decent seed in the East. But next season is just one season. Keeping Lance is about looking at multiple years beyond next season, years in which David West will inevitably get old and no longer be such a great player. With the sadly inevitable decline of West in the future, the core around Paul George could potentially be pretty questionable if we don't keep Lance.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                      I think the difference with Lance is that not only is he a more talented player than what we've acquired thus far, but Lance is a more dynamic player. I think we will notice his absence quite a bit if he's not brought back.
                      I think that we will notice the difference......but both in a good and bad way. I totally agree that the "OMFG, what will he pull out of his hat next?" unpredictable X-Factor will be gone.....something I will really miss. But I also think that the offense COULD POSSIBLY become a more boring, predictable but more efficiently run offense with GH running the offense more. To be fair, boring and predictable doesn't translates into points all the time.......but running a more efficient offense may.

                      I'm a pessimist by nature........but the only silver lining I can see out of this is "addition by subtraction, unfortunately...likely more subtraction than addition".

                      Also......if Lance is moved...I'm hoping that Bird will be looking to make additional moves to possibly get another PG that can help run the offense. I don't expect someone on the level of Rondo or Dragic ( like everyone wishes ) but someone that can handle the ball help move it around among the offense.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 07-08-2014, 05:02 PM.
                      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?

                        I love Lance but I agree that there may be some addition by subtraction if he leaves. Clearly there were some Lance related chemistry issues last year and I think part of the slide was due to the team being frustrated with him. That being said damn he is talented and seeing him on another team would be painful.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                          I love Lance but I agree that there may be some addition by subtraction if he leaves. Clearly there were some Lance related chemistry issues last year and I think part of the slide was due to the team being frustrated with him. That being said damn he is talented and seeing him on another team would be painful.
                          I totally agree with what you are saying.......by no means do I think we will be a better Team. Nor do I think anyone that wants Lance to stay but don't have a "do everything that you have to do to keep him" mentality think that the Team will be better. I am 99% sure that we won't be as good or even better without Lance.....but I am as confident in the notion that we won't be as bad as everybody thinks we will be without Lance.

                          How much better than that will be dependent on if Bird actually has a better "Plan B" than signing CJ2/Lavoy/Rudez/Whittington.

                          I doubt that we'd be automatic ECF contenders without....but I think that we'd be a solid 2nd round Playoff Team.
                          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?

                            We can win a title without Lance and it wouldn't surprise me tbh.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              With the sadly inevitable decline of West in the future, the core around Paul George could potentially be pretty questionable if we don't keep Lance.
                              After seeing last seasons collapse, isn't the chemistry of the core around Paul George pretty questionable if we were to keep Lance - especially at a high price tag. Last season Lance had a contract to play for, and he started the season out great. Once he didn't make the AS team (and lost out on a little recognition that may have been helpful come contract negotiation time) he began playing more selfishly, and our downward trend continued.

                              The things we saw from this team last year (the negative body language, the jabs in the media, the selfish play, etc) was something we NEVER saw from this group before. It all just so happened once Lance gained a prominent role on the team. I'm not saying he's the sole reason, and anything suggesting such is mere speculation. But it certainly is an interesting coincidence IMO.

                              I know most of you see Lance as the Westbrook to Paul's Durant, (though I don't personally see it) and if you strictly looked at their skill-sets - maybe it could work with drastic improvements from both players. But I believe shifting to that philosophy not only goes against the things that had made us a successful and up-coming team previously (chemistry/camaraderie) but it downgrades the rest of the core around Paul. If you keep Lance at a high price tag ($10 mil per +) then you're committing to that philosophy.

                              I don't think we can return with the same starting 5 intact. I just don't think the chemistry will be there when push comes to shove.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                I don't think we can return with the same starting 5 intact. I just don't think the chemistry will be there when push comes to shove.
                                There are a lot of reasons why issues from the end of last season aren't written in stone - some time off to get over things, a new realization of what people are going to expect when the hype hits, an appreciation for how much they actually need each other to get anywhere that only comes after hitting the wall.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X