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

  • #61
    Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    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.
    Guilty as charged you Lance lover.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Guilty as charged you Lance lover.
      He's still not a point guard. nailed it.


      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        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.
        Was there a team option on that offer?

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          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.
          There were three ways to take it when you suggested that the 15 million vs. 9 million offers are too far apart to make any sense.

          1) 9M is too low
          2) 15M is too high
          3) both of the above

          In a "we want Lance" thread, #1 and #3 seemed most likely. Now we know that #2 is your opinion. It is mine as well.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

            i think if Lance can't find any better deals his agent might try to get the length of the contract reduced, so he can have some "prove his worth" years and then hit the market again.

            ...and I don't want "I'm out to prove something" Lance on this team.
            I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              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.
              It's......... really not much of a leap. Far from fantastic, at least. Fairly medium to low leap.
              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


              • #67
                Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                There were three ways to take it when you suggested that the 15 million vs. 9 million offers are too far apart to make any sense.

                1) 9M is too low
                2) 15M is too high
                3) both of the above

                In a "we want Lance" thread, #1 and #3 seemed most likely. Now we know that #2 is your opinion. It is mine as well.
                My first post was this:

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I really don't understand how Gordon Hayward is worth more than Lance
                Seems pretty obvious to me that I'm suggesting that I see our offer to Lance as fair. If I was saying Lance should get more I feel like I would have said "I really don't understand how Lance is worth less than Hayward", but I specifically worded it to say "I really don't understand how Gordon Hayward is worth more than Lance"


                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  It's......... really not much of a leap. Far from fantastic, at least. Fairly medium to low leap.
                  No it's a pretty big leap. Just because I don't think Hayward is worth more than Lance doesn't mean that I am sitting here saying we should pay Lance $15 million per.


                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                    I think a few folks are missing the point. The main argument was that some folks couldn't see why Lance is not garnering as much on the open market as Gordon Hayward.

                    The on-court impact of either player is probably a lot closer than the money is dictating. It just goes to show how much of a "ding" a player takes for having lapses in conduct. In a world where Lance Stephenson isn't a part-time knucklehead, he absolutely could be garnering Hayward type money based off skillset and impact. But he's nowhere close to Hayward in general conduct, and what you're seeing is a what... $20 million dollar difference? He's losing out on a serious chunk of change because "Lance will be Lance" and he lacked the maturity to conduct himself. And that's a shame. All he had to do was grow up and act his age, and still keep doing what he is capable of doing on the court, and he wouldn't be having this open market cricket-fest.

                    This is no longer the age of "any publicity is good publicity". That died in the 90s. Now companies are extremely image-conscious and they want their employees to represent their company to the utmost, and Lance doesn't necessarily do that. He's paying for it. On the flip side of this, however, is the fact that he should consider himself lucky at all to be offered $44 million dollars, being drafted where he was, and with his past transgressions.
                    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


                    • #70
                      Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      No it's a pretty big leap. Just because I don't think Hayward is worth more than Lance doesn't mean that I am sitting here saying we should pay Lance $15 million per.
                      Now, see, you took a leap. I never said we should pay Lance $15mill a year. I said you like Lance. Don't you like Lance?

                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-09-2014, 04:47 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


                      • #71
                        Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                        Serious question, there are people here who would be willing to pay Lance $15 million per if he had just....behaved? Like if that's the main difference between Lance and Hayward. I would not have done that. Lance could have avoided the blowing, the face slap, the comments, and all that. I still wouldn't pay him $15 million per, and that's what I'm saying about Hayward too.


                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                          I have yet to read this entire thread, but I'm curious...Why can't it be as simple as the general consensus around the league feels that guys like Ariza, Parsons, and Hayward are better than Stephenson? This is why they have garnered interest at contracts that surpass what the Pacers offered Lance.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Serious question, there are people here who would be willing to pay Lance $15 million per if he had just....behaved? Like if that's the main difference between Lance and Hayward. I would not have done that. Lance could have avoided the blowing, the face slap, the comments, and all that. I still wouldn't pay him $15 million per, and that's what I'm saying about Hayward too.
                            I'm with you there

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Serious question, there are people here who would be willing to pay Lance $15 million per if he had just....behaved?
                              Ah-yup. Absolutely. Well, maybe not $15mill. $13 mill. And by "behaved", includes "not pouting when a team mate passes up a shot after he passes them the ball", and "not pouting when someone doesn't pass him the ball". His conduct issues are nice and evenly spread from on to off the court. It's little **** like that that can drive a team crazy. It's energy ill-spent and it can detract from the good things you bring to the table.
                              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-09-2014, 04:51 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


                              • #75
                                Re: Reggie Miller wants Lance back

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                Now, see, you took a leap. I never said we should pay Lance $15mill a year. I said you like Lance. Don't you like Lance?
                                I never said you said we should pay Lance $15 million per.

                                Do I like Lance? In what way? I think Lance is a lot of fun to watch, I think he's talented (probably second most talented guy on the team), I think he had a really good year last year in general.

                                All that being said, I think it's been pretty well documented on here from the day we drafted him that I've had some serious concerns about the guy. (90sNBARocked used to always take me on when I would complain about Lance)

                                That being said, I'd like to keep him if the price is right (which I think our offer is), but if we lose him I'll only be a little worried about it because of the talent downgrade we will likely experience, but if it takes 10, 12, 15 million per to keep him? No thanks, I don't need to make that sort of commitment to him.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X