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 Unclebuck View Post
    Not sure this is the thread for this.

    But did anyone else hear Dan Burke on the Dan Dakich show a couple of days ago. Rakestraw was filling in for Dakich.

    But Burke pretty much confirmed what was widely reported. he said something to the effect we saw last season what worrying about the allstar team got us. Rakestraw either wasn't listening or didn't care because he didn't follow up. So reading between the lines the allstar voting and who made it and who didn't caused chemistry problems on our team.
    This is my biggest concern with re-signing Lance right now. If he ends up signing for Bird's original offer (or close to it) because he didn't have offers that were quite a bit bigger, and IF (not saying it is a fact, just wondering) there were some chemistry problems due to all-star appearances, jealousy, etc., does Lance hold resentment for not making as much as others, thus causing more chemistry problems next season?

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Not sure this is the thread for this.

      But did anyone else hear Dan Burke on the Dan Dakich show a couple of days ago. Rakestraw was filling in for Dakich.

      But Burke pretty much confirmed what was widely reported. he said something to the effect we saw last season what worrying about the allstar team got us. Rakestraw either wasn't listening or didn't care because he didn't follow up. So reading between the lines the allstar voting and who made it and who didn't caused chemistry problems on our team.
      Seems like that narrative favors Burke and since he has a dog in the fight, I'm not sure how much stock we can put in it. Burke is the defensive coordinator so he'd rather point fingers at chemistry issues. That's much better for him than "the team fell apart because other teams figured out our defense and I could never adjust."

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Strummer View Post
        Seems like that narrative favors Burke and since he has a dog in the fight, I'm not sure how much stock we can put in it. Burke is the defensive coordinator so he'd rather point fingers at chemistry issues. That's much better for him than "the team fell apart because other teams figured out our defense and I could never adjust."

        I have learned to put a lot of stock in what Burke says. He is by far the most up front and straight forward of any of the coaches. If you ever see his halftime interviews you know that.

        Comment


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

          I don't really buy the stories of Lance having his feelings hurt by a low ball Pacers offer. I'm sure his agent prepared him for the process well in advance.

          But if it was true, he should be getting over it. Because...

          Now he's seen the Jazz "low ball" Gordon Hayward. And Hayward get a much bigger offer. Now Lance waits to see if the Jazz raise their offer.

          And Lance saw Roy Hibbert go through the same thing.

          I think Lance is content to watch it all play out to see what happens.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Strummer View Post
            I don't really buy the stories of Lance having his feelings hurt by a low ball Pacers offer. I'm sure his agent prepared him for the process well in advance.

            But if it was true, he should be getting over it. Because...

            Now he's seen the Jazz "low ball" Gordon Hayward. And Hayward get a much bigger offer. Now Lance waits to see if the Jazz raise their offer.

            And Lance saw Roy Hibbert go through the same thing.

            I think Lance is content to watch it all play out to see what happens.
            huge difference in an unrestricted free agent and how a team should go about trying to get him back compared to a restricted free agent

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Granville View Post
              This is my biggest concern with re-signing Lance right now. If he ends up signing for Bird's original offer (or close to it) because he didn't have offers that were quite a bit bigger, and IF (not saying it is a fact, just wondering) there were some chemistry problems due to all-star appearances, jealousy, etc., does Lance hold resentment for not making as much as others, thus causing more chemistry problems next season?
              I was thinking the very same thing this morning.

              I am worried that Lance will sign our deal but feel like he was low balled and will spend the next couple of years being resentful.

              Right now our best bet is to hope that his agent has gone over the entire process with him and has him convinced that they are not upset with the Pacers offer but they are working the system to see what they can get.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


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


                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
                  huge difference in an unrestricted free agent and how a team should go about trying to get him back compared to a restricted free agent
                  Not really. Not when both sides are happy with each other. The Pacers made a fair offer with the requisite show to woo him. Now they wait for the market to shake itself out. No one else has even wooed him. The "overpay him just to be safe" theory is silly. You just drive up his price and he could still walk away.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I was thinking the very same thing this morning.

                    I am worried that Lance will sign our deal but feel like he was low balled and will spend the next couple of years being resentful.

                    Right now our best bet is to hope that his agent has gone over the entire process with him and has him convinced that they are not upset with the Pacers offer but they are working the system to see what they can get.
                    At some point we have to decide if Lance is stupid or not.

                    If no one else in the league matches or beats the offer, how could it be lowball?
                    If Lance dogs it or disrupts the locker room, how can he expect to get a better offer in the future?

                    I don't think he's stupid and I don't think he is that much of an emotional child, so I don't think he'll be resentful.

                    He'll have something to prove (again), so the question is whether he tries to prove it WITH the rest of the team or IN SPITE OF the rest of the team.

                    In this case, though, I don't think it will blindside his teammates or the coaching staff, and they'll have a training camp to work out how to handle it - unlike when Lance went off on his own after not making the ASG.
                    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
                      As you say, though, in many cases I think the offense was not designed to prevent that (note the way I phrased that).

                      Then again, based on people's opinions of the rest of the team, the only other player who should be allowed to be ball dominant is Lance. No one else should touch the ball because they are variously slow, old, diffident, or just otherwise suck.
                      I don't think anyone has said that. It's about roles. Who plays what role?

                      Do you feel confident with George Hill playing a larger role against the upper echelon teams?

                      I don't. But, I feel confident with him as a 4th option who makes open threes and can attack the weak side of the defense.

                      Do you think we can depend on Hibbert in those games?

                      I don't. But, I am confident in his ability to hit the offensive glass and provide occasional low post offense.

                      So who does that leave?

                      Lance, DWest and Paul are the three guys who have the talent to carry us offensively. They are clearly the three most talented offensive players on the team, it's not even close.

                      So why in the world is Lance tied with Hibbert for 4th on the usg list? Hibbert should be a 5th option on this team.

                      Why is our 5th option (Hill) at almost 20% usg? He can be MORE effective with LESS touches.

                      Why is Paul so much higher than everyone else? If you aren't shooting a good percentage you can't take that many shots.

                      That's where it's out of wack. The Spurs top three for example are all within 2% of each other (24-26%) and they all shoot close to 50%, and that is the real balance in their offense. Everyone talks about balance and they are the epitome of balance. But they don't have 5 guys at 20%. They have 3 guys at about 25%. They have multiple play makers who dominate the action. That's what made Kawhi Leonard impossible to stop in the Finals. When it takes 5 guys to guard your best 3 players, that makes the game much easier for the two guys leftover. That's when you the get wide open threes, easy put backs, and trips to the foul line that make you an elite offensive team. It's not just "ball movement". You can pass the ball 15 times every time down and never get a good shot out of it.

                      Lance, DWest and Paul should all be around 25%, Hill and Hibbert need to get in where they fit in.


                      Truth is, Lance hasn't dominated the ball at all. And that's the argument that keeps happening around here. He is tied for 4th on that list. He actually needs to be MORE involved, and he also has to make better decisions at the same time. You need to have the ball in the hands of your best players and build the team around their strengths. We don't do that. We've built the team around 2 good, not great, bigs. And then we have PG, Lance and Hill fighting for the scraps, and two of those guys are our best players.

                      And we are wondering why we weren't playing for the title this year?

                      It's because our bigs are not good enough to win a title, and our whole offensive strategy is built around them. They don't make the game easier for our perimeter players, they in fact make it harder.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        Why is our 5th option (Hill) at almost 20% usg? He can be MORE effective with LESS touches.
                        That's not correct btw. Hill is at 14.8%, way below average for a starter. If anyone had cause for complaining of lack of touches last year, it was him, not Roy.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          That's not correct btw. Hill is at 14.8%, way below average for a starter. If anyone had cause for complaining of lack of touches last year, it was him, not Roy.
                          It's also way below average for a starting guard.

                          Comment


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

                            Usage rate only shows so much though. We have to take into consideration FGA, AST%, and offensive ratings as well as other advanced statistics before you can truly say who's doing what.

                            Right now our offense is ISO-centric. It isn't centered around our bigs. And it shouldn't be. But it shouldn't be centered around our perimiter players either. Our offense should be centered around ball movement, and getting the best shot available. Outside of PG (and it's questionable for him too) our perimeter players are not good enough to win a title any more than our bigs are. But as a 5 man unit, I think we are good enough to compete for a title. But only if we play as a 5 man unit.

                            PG's usage can come down, but he's easily the best player on the team so we will live and die by him. I expect his higher usage rate to continue unless we have another capable scorer next to him - something we lack outside of West. West is our second most consistent/dangerous scorer, so I have no problem with him having the second highest usage rate. We normally get a good shot from him or someone else when he has the ball in his hands.
                            Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-09-2014, 12:03 PM.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              That's not correct btw. Hill is at 14.8%, way below average for a starter. If anyone had cause for complaining of lack of touches last year, it was him, not Roy.
                              That wasn't my most articulate moment.

                              That comment was poorly worded and more directed at the people who think the starters should all be around 20%. It's not possible. People have to make sacrifices, and your best players should not be sacrificing for your 4th and 5th options, that is the opposite of what needs to happen.

                              Ace: You can't center your offense around just ball movement in the NBA. You have to have something to generate it. You have to get the defense to react to what your doing and open things up. It's either penetration or post up, and you have to move off the ball as well, THEN comes ball movement. Every team wants ball movement, our problem is how we get there. It's not as simple as just saying "pass the ball".

                              The question I'm talking about is how you generate better ball movement? Paul and Lance are our best passers and there is no reason to think they aren't willing to pass the ball. In fact all of our guys are willing passers. So why aren't they sharing the ball enough?

                              Because they are pressing the issue in an offense that doesn't fit them and needs a major retooling. JMO
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                As you say, though, in many cases I think the offense was not designed to prevent that (note the way I phrased that).

                                Then again, based on people's opinions of the rest of the team, the only other player who should be allowed to be ball dominant is Lance. No one else should touch the ball because they are variously slow, old, diffident, or just otherwise suck.
                                Bummer.. I had something I thought I had posted and it must of gotten lost in cyberspace so here is the shorten version.

                                You guys are arguing at what player is to fault when it really boils down to coaching IMO. Frank has taken this team in the wrong direction and that is reflected in our post play. West and Hibbert shot it farther out than they should have this year and we have gone away from our identity. Our bigs are used more to free up the guards on the pnr/pnp than as legitmate threats in the post. I can find fault in the players games don't get me wrong but Frank to me is more to blame than PG or Lance.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X