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

Larry Bird stunned Lance left

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

  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

    He is the problem with the "just watch the game" only crowd. Statistics can expose them for having a bad eye. And we all watch games looking for proof that our eye is the real deal in assessing the game. So we want to see Lance as an elite player, we overlook the negatives and extenuate the positives. Meanwhile with ROY, Hill, and Granger we extenuate the negatives and overlook the positives. Well except for ROY. He can just suck and a blind man who never experienced basketball could affirm that.
    Li
    The overlook/extenuate pattern is what leads to most of the over analyzation on this board. With statistics and eye test flung around. I can agree that the statistics don't tell the entire story. But sometimes there are posters who I think are watching a completely different game than me. Their eyes fail them. We need balance in both.

    And if you are an all of nothing poster. You are more than likely being ignored by most people. Enter into a discussion objectively and subjectively.

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      The only scenario in which I could see Lance ever returning would be after he causes an implosion in the Hornet's locker room and they miss the playoffs for the next 2 years while Lance collects his stats and has a few more J.R. Smith type antics on the court. Charlotte decides not to pick up the team option in year 3 and Lance's value mirrors that of Stuckey this year. A player with decent stats and issues that make him a minimum contract player. Bird would be one of the few people ready to give him another shot. Then we get Lance in years 3-5 for only 2-3 mil per year instead of 9.
      I'd say the odds of that happening are about equal to the odds of Lance becoming a max contract player in his next free agency.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        I think the next max player type, they hope is a true Point Guard that makes people around him better, not Lance.

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          I think chasing a top-level Lance in free agency would be a mistake for the Pacers. As has been pointed out over and over, teams like the Pacers need to find guys on reasonable contracts and fit them together - the Spurs model, if you will, since they never have had multiple guys on max contracts at the same time.

          Chasing yet another max FA is a fools game when you can't surround him with solid, lower salary players.
          I think just because historically we haven't doesn't mean we won't. We also have a pretty big drought of championships so maybe we need to try something different around PG if this core can't get it done in the next 2 years.

          The tax limit rising the way it does gives small market teams more flexibility to spend.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
            The tax limit rising the way it does gives small market teams more flexibility to spend.
            Problem is that it also does the same for big market teams, so those max salaries will be going up by just as much.
            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: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              I think chasing a top-level Lance in free agency would be a mistake for the Pacers. As has been pointed out over and over, teams like the Pacers need to find guys on reasonable contracts and fit them together - the Spurs model, if you will, since they never have had multiple guys on max contracts at the same time.

              Chasing yet another max FA is a fools game when you can't surround him with solid, lower salary players.
              The Spurs model involves getting absurdly lucky in the draft lottery so that you can get the greatest PF of all time (while you still had an all time great center) who is still a beast at age 38, and surrounding him with a couple of the greatest international players of all time who have also been timeless. That core has been together for 12 years and has been pretty generous with their salary demands.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-22-2014, 10:31 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                dal9 is right, we're hard capped by the apron because of the CJ Miles signing. (I keep harping on the Miles signing, but it's nothing against him personally - in CBA terms it really took away a huge amount of flexibility.)

                Lance couldn't even sign our original 5 year $44m offer anymore, unless we waived someone first.
                And THAT is what it comes down to in the end IMHO.
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                  The tax limit rising the way it does gives small market teams more flexibility to spend.
                  Not necessarily. Overall league revenues may be growing faster than local markets. If, for example, the Pacers' revenues are growing by 5%, but the Lakers' and Knicks' are growing by 20% (all figures made up), then the league will eventually end up with a salary cap and luxury tax level that is unaffordable for the Pacers. On the bright side, there's revenue sharing, which should even out these uneven revenue growths. And also, the huge influx of money is expected to come from the national TV contract, which as far as I know is equally shared by all teams.

                  But I still think back to a couple of years ago, when Bird admitted that the Pacers have an internal budget that's lower than the tax level. That's an additional restriction that I hope we don't need to impose on ourselves.

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  The Spurs model involves getting absurdly lucky in the draft lottery so that you can get the greatest PF of all time (while you still had an all time great center) who is still a beast at age 38, and surrounding him with a couple of the greatest international players of all time who have also been timeless. That core has been together for 12 years and has been pretty generous with their salary demands.
                  So true. I'll bet small market GMs all hate the Spurs' guts LOL. They must be tired of all the "why can't you be like the Spurs" comments from fans, media, and possibly their owners too.

                  The Spurs never had to deal with multiple max contracts because they managed to lock up their #2 and #3 guys on affordable long term contracts. In today's market, both Manu and Parker at their peaks would probably get max offers. How the Spurs manage this is black magic on the same magnitude as Phoenix's medical staff.

                  Spurs also rarely overpay their role players. Instead they have a magical ability to go the trash heap and pull out a contributor out of a guy like Diaw or Bonner or Belinelli or Green.

                  I'd love for us to be like the Spurs but I don't think it's realistic. they're really a world apart from everyone else.

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I think chasing a top-level Lance in free agency would be a mistake for the Pacers. As has been pointed out over and over, teams like the Pacers need to find guys on reasonable contracts and fit them together - the Spurs model, if you will, since they never have had multiple guys on max contracts at the same time.

                  Chasing yet another max FA is a fools game when you can't surround him with solid, lower salary players.
                  It's said that the 2 best value contracts in the NBA are a) rookie contracts; and b) superstars on max contracts. In both cases, you have the CBA artificially limiting the player's actual value.

                  So LeBron at $20m is a bargain for example, because he's worth much more than that on the court. Similarly, we will be paying Paul G some $20m+ in 2018 (and possibly more because he has a player option), but if he turns into mini-LeBron like we're hoping then it would easily be worth it.

                  So chasing max type players is indeed a worthy strategy, as long as the guy we're chasing is a true superstar. here we come to the problem of course, because how do you tell the real superstars apart? Right now there's a lot of guys being paid like superstars when they actually aren't. But in theory chasing max FAs is a good strategy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    So chasing max type players is indeed a worthy strategy, as long as the guy we're chasing is a true superstar. here we come to the problem of course, because how do you tell the real superstars apart? Right now there's a lot of guys being paid like superstars when they actually aren't. But in theory chasing max FAs is a good strategy.
                    I'd counter that chasing multiple max FAs on the same team increases the chanc es of having at least one max player who doesn't contribute at that level. If the goal is to have value for money at each position (with all that value contributing toward the goal of a championship) then I would say money is better spent on rookies and exception-level roleplayers while focusing on a single (or maybe 2) max guys who you are certain will play the way they are paid.
                    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: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      Drafting Lance Stephenson in the second round and turning him into a stud starter was kind of Spur-like considering that Parker and Manu were drafted pretty late (Manu in the second). The difference is that the Spurs were able to keep those guys.

                      The Pacers core has been all about the money. Even David West at the end of his prime is making a pretty damn high salary.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Which is why you don't use single game stats, and use seasonal averages.
                        I'll just watch the games...
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Drafting Lance Stephenson in the second round and turning him into a stud starter was kind of Spur-like considering that Parker and Manu were drafted pretty late (Manu in the second). The difference is that the Spurs were able to keep those guys.

                          The Pacers core has been all about the money. Even David West at the end of his prime is making a pretty damn high salary.
                          Donnie "I'll write the check" Walsh made the Pacers a great place to be overpaid. Which leads to higher expectations by players and agents. ...Except of course for Brad Miller...
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            Not necessarily. Overall league revenues may be growing faster than local markets. If, for example, the Pacers' revenues are growing by 5%, but the Lakers' and Knicks' are growing by 20% (all figures made up), then the league will eventually end up with a salary cap and luxury tax level that is unaffordable for the Pacers. On the bright side, there's revenue sharing, which should even out these uneven revenue growths. And also, the huge influx of money is expected to come from the national TV contract, which as far as I know is equally shared by all teams.

                            But I still think back to a couple of years ago, when Bird admitted that the Pacers have an internal budget that's lower than the tax level. That's an additional restriction that I hope we don't need to impose on ourselves.



                            So true. I'll bet small market GMs all hate the Spurs' guts LOL. They must be tired of all the "why can't you be like the Spurs" comments from fans, media, and possibly their owners too.

                            The Spurs never had to deal with multiple max contracts because they managed to lock up their #2 and #3 guys on affordable long term contracts. In today's market, both Manu and Parker at their peaks would probably get max offers. How the Spurs manage this is black magic on the same magnitude as Phoenix's medical staff.

                            Spurs also rarely overpay their role players. Instead they have a magical ability to go the trash heap and pull out a contributor out of a guy like Diaw or Bonner or Belinelli or Green.

                            I'd love for us to be like the Spurs but I don't think it's realistic. they're really a world apart from everyone else.



                            It's said that the 2 best value contracts in the NBA are a) rookie contracts; and b) superstars on max contracts. In both cases, you have the CBA artificially limiting the player's actual value.

                            So LeBron at $20m is a bargain for example, because he's worth much more than that on the court. Similarly, we will be paying Paul G some $20m+ in 2018 (and possibly more because he has a player option), but if he turns into mini-LeBron like we're hoping then it would easily be worth it.

                            So chasing max type players is indeed a worthy strategy, as long as the guy we're chasing is a true superstar. here we come to the problem of course, because how do you tell the real superstars apart? Right now there's a lot of guys being paid like superstars when they actually aren't. But in theory chasing max FAs is a good strategy.
                            Yeah, asking a small market team to follow the "Spurs Model" (getting lucky to win Duncan lottery when D-Rob was hurt, teaming Duncan with two of the greatest international players ever who were drafted late) is about the same as asking NFL teams to follow the "Colts model" (riding Peyton Manning for 13 years and then using his injury to tank when the next "big thing" was coming out). Some franchises in sports just get really really lucky. The Spurs and Colts are great examples of ridiculous luck.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-22-2014, 12:13 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              Well at the very least people are no longer clamoring for small market teams to be run like the Thunder. That used to drive me insane when everybody (including national talk guys who should know better) would proclaim all small market teams should be run like that.


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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                I'd counter that chasing multiple max FAs on the same team increases the chanc es of having at least one max player who doesn't contribute at that level. If the goal is to have value for money at each position (with all that value contributing toward the goal of a championship) then I would say money is better spent on rookies and exception-level roleplayers while focusing on a single (or maybe 2) max guys who you are certain will play the way they are paid.
                                There's an additional level of complexity beyond having good value at each position, I think. You still need to have some minimum level of team talent to make the playoffs/conf. finals/ finals etc. So for example, in theory a roster made up entirely of rookie contracts and minimum level players would be very good value but you'll probably have trouble winning games let alone making the playoffs.

                                Likewise, for a contending team there's probably some minimum level of talent you need to reach in order to be competitive, and you won't always be able to get guys who are good value AND talented at every position (unless you're the Spurs). So that's another reason in favor of superstars on max contracts - they can kill 2 birds with one stone, in terms of being both good value and being able to raise the talent level of the team significantly.

                                It seems evident now that our team building strategy was sustainable only while PG and Lance remained on rookie contracts. Those rookie contracts ended this year, and not coincidentally we lost a core player right away. We'll need to hope the draft delivers another talented guy soon to keep the engine running.
                                Last edited by wintermute; 07-22-2014, 12:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X