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

    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
    I don't think there's any question he turns that down. The team option remains a huge head scratcher for me. Maybe if it was a player option, but the Hornets have all the leverage in that situation.

    If it's true that the Pacers offered Lance a player opt-out option in their original offer, then it's clear to me he either didn't want to be here and wanted a fresh start or he just wants to be the alpha perimeter player somewhere.
    This.

    I don't by "fresh start." If he was mature enough to know he needed a fresh start, he would have been mature enough to know he should behave himself if Larry told him too.

    Lance wants attention. Lance wants to be the man. And despite the fact that he is unlikely to get it in Charlotte, he definitely won't get it in Indiana.

    Like I said, if Larry really did want him back, I think he did Larry a favor.

    edit: As I've been saying, it would have been stupid for Lance to not see what the rest of the league was offering. But The Pacers offered him the best deal, turning it down had to be about something other than money. The only thing Charlotte had going for it was that he had a better shot of being "the guy" in Charlotte. Heck, Michael Jordan couldn't even have been that big of a draw considering Larry Bird is in Indiana, and considering how he has treated Lance.
    Last edited by Sookie; 07-21-2014, 10:51 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      Yup. That's some lazy reporting by Kravitz.

      If Bird really thinks Lance is the team's best player, why does he want to pay him like the 4th best? There's a disconnect here.

      One way or another, we messed up. We handcuffed ourselves with overpaid role player deals (including this year, before Lance could sign - so much for being top priority), and thus lost all flexibility to give Lance the deal he wanted. This part is telling:



      Once the Pacers committed to CJ Miles, each and every Pacer fan was left scratching his or her head trying to figure out how we can still fit Lance in. We were all wondering what kind of clever move Larry had in reserve. Turns out, his clever strategy was to hope that Lance really liked his initial offers.
      No we didn't, Bird made his offer, and Lance said no, Larry was never going to raise the dollar amount on it, even if we could.

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        If the Pacers offered a player option for Lance to opt-out, then it's clear that we did all that we could've. If Lance really wanted to be here, he would've tried to work it out with us, especially with the money being pretty similar.

        Kemba Walker is a very good player, but he's not Paul George on the perimeter. His shadow is a lot smaller. We want the ball in our best player's hands on the perimeter more often than not, and with the Pacers, that was always going to be Paul. Lance was always going to be option #2 for the Pacers on the perimeter. With the Hornets, he'll have a chance to be #1 (with Walker as his primary competition) and inflate his stats (we've seen how that can negatively impact his game post all-star break).

        This reminds me a bit of Vince Carter and T-Mac in Toronto, except I don't think Lance is anywhere the player that McGrady was. All I'll say is be careful what you wish for Lance. The greener pastures, may not be greener.
        Last edited by PR07; 07-21-2014, 11:17 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          We didn't mess up. He took a worse offer. It makes zero sense. We made our offer from day 1. Charlotte came in late, said "here's an offer that's worse than what you have, but whatever, you want it?" He wanted "way more" than what was offered and yet accepted basically the same per year money for 2 less years and a team option to boot. And if he wanted more flexibility in a few years when the cap goes up, the Pacers said they'd work with him

          It's moronic.
          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


          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            let me ask a general question. if the pacers had offered exactly what the Hornets offered but on the very first day of free agency, do you think Lance would have accepted it? I do not.
            I think he would have turned it down, and would tried for a Mavs-type offer instead (2 years $20m). If he failed to get that (as happened in real life), I think he would have taken the 3 years $27m with us over the Hornets. Obviously all this is speculation.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              Larry is keeping the door open for Lance in a couple of years.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                We didn't mess up. He took a worse offer. It makes zero sense. We made our offer from day 1. Charlotte came in late, said "here's an offer that's worse than what you have, but whatever, you want it?" He wanted "way more" than what was offered and yet accepted basically the same per year money for 2 less years and a team option to boot. And if he wanted more flexibility in a few years when the cap goes up, the Pacers said they'd work with him

                It's moronic.
                From the Pacers' POV, we offered the most money. $44m > $27m. Duh.

                From Lance's POV, the offer he took gets him more money. $27m in the first 3 years versus $24m in our offer. Plus he thinks he's going to earn more in years 4 and 5.

                Now you and I may think Lance's logic is faulty, but that's what he thinks. This refusal to either work with or understand Lance's thinking, is IMO the reason Lance is no longer a Pacer.

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                  Larry is keeping the door open for Lance in a couple of years.
                  Haha, if that happens some people around here are going to get whiplash from their 180 degree turns.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    You know I don't care about Lance all that much one way or the other. I mean I like to watch him play, he's fun to watch. But I also have said all along that I know that if a team has to babysit a player all the time that it can be drug down because of it. I think, to a certain extent, that the team had to babysit him and he often had to be "talked" to during games to try and calm him down. I think overall team wise he was probably a burden off of the court. On the court he was a dynamic player who could do spectacular things but that also included spectacularly bad play as well.

                    Was he guilty of over dribbling and going one on one to often? Yes.

                    Was he the worst player about doing this? Probably. But the caveat to this is that he was also the only player who could create something out of nothing. Also while he was bad about it he was nowhere near alone in doing this both Hibbert & George were guilty of the same thing.

                    Now I say all of that to say this, I will miss Lance to an extent but here is where I stand at the moment on my thoughts on the team.

                    I was not going to be happy with our team had we brought Lance back without significant upgrades at a few positions. Losing Lance and replacing him with CJ Miles IMO is not an upgrade. Now you can argue team chemistry till your face falls off and I will agree to a point but at the end of the day we have hit the ceiling with what this group can do and in fact I think we not only hit our ceiling but we were already starting our down hill descent as the season ended.

                    When I think back to our first playoff series a few years ago vs the Bulls I just get downright depressed because when we saw that team it had passion and fire and raw untapped talent.

                    Now we have gone from a healthy active Danny Granger to Lance Stephenson to now C.J. Miles.

                    Only the biggest homer fan wearing their blue and gold colored goggles will see how this is even remotely staying even and not a huge dropoff.

                    Our front court is slow, unathletic and in West & Scola case old.

                    We have given Frank another stretch four player when Frank has shown he won't play the one we have, which is fine but let's stop pretending like he's going to play these guys.

                    We got to the E.C. finals so it's hard to look at last season and say "hey we are on the downhill march" but I'm sorry the way we played the second half of the season and how poorly we played vs the Hawks and the Heat to me was not an anomaly.

                    So Lance, while important, to me wasn't going to make or break us this season anyway.

                    Losing Lance though and replacing him with C.J. Miles on the other hand is going to suck and I'm just now to the point where we need to significantly relook at where we truly are at as a team and roster and I think we need to adjust accordingly.

                    I dream of course of trading Hibbert but I know that is not going to happen. However I think Mahinmi is a decent asset that you could look to move and get something decent in return. He is an active big on a fairly modest contract. I really would like to see him moved so that Frank is forced to play Allen instead of Ian and I think you could get either a good point guard or a decent wing for him.


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      This.

                      I don't by "fresh start." If he was mature enough to know he needed a fresh start, he would have been mature enough to know he should behave himself if Larry told him too.

                      Lance wants attention. Lance wants to be the man. And despite the fact that he is unlikely to get it in Charlotte, he definitely won't get it in Indiana.

                      Like I said, if Larry really did want him back, I think he did Larry a favor.

                      edit: As I've been saying, it would have been stupid for Lance to not see what the rest of the league was offering. But The Pacers offered him the best deal, turning it down had to be about something other than money. The only thing Charlotte had going for it was that he had a better shot of being "the guy" in Charlotte. Heck, Michael Jordan couldn't even have been that big of a draw considering Larry Bird is in Indiana, and considering how he has treated Lance.
                      Except Lance didn't think this "best deal" was good enough and is the reason why he waited for better offers. When those didn't come he decided, logically IMHO, to take a shorter deal and try to work up his worth up from there for his next deal which he expects to be better for him.
                      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 Tom White View Post
                        That is a question worth asking, and here is how I would answer it.

                        You are shopping for a car. The first dealer quotes you a price that you honestly think is pretty darn good. Do you still go see what the rest of the market will offer? Yes, of course you do. You may find out the first offer was the best ( or not), but you owe it to yourself to see if a better deal is out there.
                        No you dont, if its a good offer you take it. How do you know if the car will be there after you've done your looking around? Its more like you called the first dealer an idiot for his crazy price, then found out that is was actually the best one, but you were too embarrassed to crawl back. Lance/His agent is an idiot.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                          Except Lance didn't think this "best deal" was good enough and is the reason why he waited for better offers. When those didn't come he decided, logically IMHO, to take a shorter deal and try to work up his worth up from there for his next deal which he expects to be better for him.
                          But we offered him a player option, the same year Charlotte has a team option. It would make sense if that wasn't the case. And MAYBE those extra couple of millions means something to him now and he wanted it instantly. But I really think it has more to do with wanting to be more of a focus on the offensive end.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            From the Pacers' POV, we offered the most money. $44m > $27m. Duh.

                            From Lance's POV, the offer he took gets him more money. $27m in the first 3 years versus $24m in our offer. Plus he thinks he's going to earn more in years 4 and 5.

                            Now you and I may think Lance's logic is faulty, but that's what he thinks. This refusal to either work with or understand Lance's thinking, is IMO the reason Lance is no longer a Pacer.
                            You act as if its a guarantee he gets a paycheck in year 4 and 5. **** happens, due to injury or the result of him doing something stupid (pushing his GF down the stairs). Even if he makes it to year 4 and 5 who's to say he gets the huge raise he's looking for. Lance is gambling, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                              That is a question worth asking, and here is how I would answer it.

                              You are shopping for a car. The first dealer quotes you a price that you honestly think is pretty darn good. Do you still go see what the rest of the market will offer? Yes, of course you do. You may find out the first offer was the best ( or not), but you owe it to yourself to see if a better deal is out there.
                              yes but you have to ask yourself, which car do you really want. If you really want a Lexus over a BMW, aren't you willing to pay a little bit more for the Lexus? if lance really wanted to stay here, don't you work with the pacers to get the type of deal you want on where you want to be. Within reason of course, but Yes you do.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
                                No you dont, if its a good offer you take it. How do you know if the car will be there after you've done your looking around? Its more like you called the first dealer an idiot for his crazy price, then found out that is was actually the best one, but you were too embarrassed to crawl back. Lance/His agent is an idiot.
                                If your value has yet to be established and you are not a restricted, but an unrestricted FA then I see no reason to take the first offer that gets thrown your way. On the contrary, see whats out there. I remember the uncertainty about what he would command in the free market.
                                Last edited by Mourning; 07-21-2014, 11:55 AM. Reason: spelling correction
                                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

                                Working...
                                X