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

Reggie Miller wants Lance back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

    Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
    I don't understand this. It's OK to overpay somebody for being a "goody too shoes", and its also OK to underpay somebody that's very good at basketball?
    People never learn from the mistake of throwing character to the side. It's like the brawl had no bearing at all on some folks. Character issues almost always bite your team in the ***.
    Good players get paid, but character issues command a price reduction these days.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-09-2014, 04:00 PM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      Don't see the big offers rolling in for Lance yet do you? I would bet when it's all said and done Hayward has a much better career than Stephenson.
      Main reason RFAs probably get big offers, and soon, is because they want to pry them away from home team, and the home team has a limited amount of time to match the offer. Why allow them more time to get things figured out? Sign the player to the max offer sheet ASAP and hope the home team doesn't match.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        Hayward is a fine player. 24 years old, well-rounded player, decent size. Unlike Lance, he's consistent and behaves himself, is disciplined and coachable. I'm sure most staffs look at Hayward as a resource they'd like to have, and he produces no headaches. Gordon out produced Lance at almost everything on the court, and without any of the sideshow headaches.

        He has teams throwing the max at him, whereas Lance is getting lowballs, soooo... I'd say the consensus is telling the story...
        See this is what I take issue with

        "Out produced Lance at almost everything"

        2013-2014 numbers incoming.

        Lance shot 49% from the field. Hayward shot 40%. Lance shot 35% from 3. Hayward shot 30%. Their turnovers are nearly identical Lance at 2.7, and Hayward at 2.8. Hayward did outscore Lance by about 2 PPG but it took him two extra field goal attempts per game to do it. Hayward a slight advantage on assists 5.2 to 4.8. Lance holds a 2RPG advantage 7.2 to 5.1. Hayward did have an advantage on steals 1.4 to .7.

        If it's all based on "attitude", then I would just expect Hayward to get a preferential treatment from most teams, but I'm sorry Hayward's numbers in no way back up a max contract. He's a nice player, but he looks pretty Mike Dunleavy-ish to me with slightly better defense. If you guys think that's worth $60million over 4 years then I'm glad you're not in charge of the Pacers.


        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          Gordon Hayward is going to get way overpaid, apparently, but how does that "earn" Lance the chance to get way overpaid, too?

          Rashard Lewis used to be the highest paid player in the league and was never a top 10 player. Mistakes happen, but mistakes then don't have to become the norm, just to deliver some sort of equity in the universe.
          Like I said, I'm in no way endorsing Lance Stephenson for a max contract player. I'm just saying that I think there should be a lot of alarms going off for any team considering giving Hayward that much money, but too late for Charlotte or Utah if they match. Good for Gordon, get that money.


          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
            If he's part of the reason your team fell apart it is. We don't know all that went on behind the scenes, but maybe Larry knows it's not worth the risk to pay more than what was offered.
            Maybe Larry is just significantly better at managing money than MJ in this case.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I think it is pretty telling that Hayward averages 1 more assist per game than Lance. Lance has much better teammates to pass the ball to and Lance is supposed to be a playmaker.
              Lance led the team in assists with 4.6 APG this year. In 2012-13, Hill led the team with 4.7 APG. The Pacers' offense just isn't conducive to a player pumping up assist numbers. It's way too slow and stalled at times, with players standing around while their teammate has the ball.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                See this is what I take issue with

                "Out produced Lance at almost everything"

                2013-2014 numbers incoming.

                Lance shot 49% from the field. Hayward shot 40%. Lance shot 35% from 3. Hayward shot 30%. Their turnovers are nearly identical Lance at 2.7, and Hayward at 2.8. Hayward did outscore Lance by about 2 PPG but it took him two extra field goal attempts per game to do it. Hayward a slight advantage on assists 5.2 to 4.8. Lance holds a 2RPG advantage 7.2 to 5.1. Hayward did have an advantage on steals 1.4 to .7.

                If it's all based on "attitude", then I would just expect Hayward to get a preferential treatment from most teams, but I'm sorry Hayward's numbers in no way back up a max contract. He's a nice player, but he looks pretty Mike Dunleavy-ish to me with slightly better defense. If you guys think that's worth $60million over 4 years then I'm glad you're not in charge of the Pacers.
                Lance also had a massive behavioral structure around him and a good team, and Heyward had junk around him and was often the focal point of opposing defenses.
                I understand you like some Lance, but you gotta go outside the score sheet and just watch with your eyes and brain.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                  Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                  Thank you!

                  "Hey that player who is similar to our player got way overpaid. We should overpay our guy too."
                  Other than the OP is anyone really saying this?


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                    My stats were off because I looked at the tweet from Reggie and just now realize that Reggie has lance's playoff stats vs Hayward's regular season stats. so that was where I got the assists total

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                      Lance also had a massive behavioral structure around him and a good team, and Heyward had junk around him and was often the focal point of opposing defenses.
                      I understand you like some Lance, but you gotta go outside the score sheet and just watch with your eyes and brain.

                      I like some Lance? Wut? I don't know what you're missing here, I'm in no way arguing for Lance to get much more than what we've offered him. However, I am saying that Hayward at $15 million per is a horrible investment for any team.

                      How many Utah games did you watch this year if we're really getting into this....I watched quite a few with league pass with my eyes and brain.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                        Also I think it's hilarious that I am now apparently classified as liking Lance just because I don't think Gordon Hayward is worth $15 million. That is a fantastic leap of logic.


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Other than the OP is anyone really saying this?
                          Not particularly in this thread, but I've seen plenty of it in other threads and on twitter.

                          Sure the market dictates player salaries to a degree but some people act as if the Pacers should go ahead and make a fiscally stupid decision with Lance just because other players are getting ridiculous contracts.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                            I think Hayward is worth 11-12 and Lance is worth 9-10. We offered him almost 9. I hope somebody offers him more because I really just want to move on from Lance.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                              I think Hayward is worth 11-12 and Lance is worth 9-10. We offered him almost 9. I hope somebody offers him more because I really just want to move on from Lance.
                              I'm at the point where I believe it would be best for the Pacers if Lance did go elsewhere. If he "settles" for their current offer, I can't imagine he would have a great attitude coming back, feeling like he's being vastly underpaid.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                I think Hayward is worth 11-12 and Lance is worth 9-10. We offered him almost 9. I hope somebody offers him more because I really just want to move on from Lance.
                                Well, I still think there's a good chance Lance ends up back here at our original offer, because I am with you guys that I don't think someone else will over bid him from us. The dude cost himself a ton of money clearly because if he had just avoided the extra curriculars in the playoffs I think he'd be the one getting this crazy offer from Charlotte.

                                Even with this you are hearing Ariza and Parsons names more than Lance. Lance may just be the odd man out in the game of musical chairs. If we get him back here at 5/44, I actually like that deal. It's a movable contrqact on a talented player.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X