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 LoneGranger33 View Post
    Nah, that's C.J. "Mas Fresco" Miles.
    http://www.datpiff.com/Masfresco-No-...pe.527454.html

    Main question is, what kind of person only gives this four stars?
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      I would almost bet the house that the Pacers have a better record than Charlotte next season. I think team unity will be restored. I guess we will find out.

      Probably will. But if we wanna CONTEND, and win a title, and beat a West team in any potential Finals match up, one of our big positions...... and our PG position must be improved.

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
        http://www.datpiff.com/Masfresco-No-...pe.527454.html

        Main question is, what kind of person only gives this four stars?
        A monster, like Charlize Theron in that movie Reindeer Games.

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          Kravitz is showing a rather severe lack of understanding of the CBA in that article, so I dunno that I'd take his word for it.
          Kravitz is indeed showing a severe lack of understanding of the CBA but that's not what I'm talking about.

          I'm talking about Bird's quote from the article. Here's what Bird said:

          "I really feel bad about losing him,'' "I hope it doesn't interfere with our relationship. But I did what I could possibly do to keep him here. Even if he didn't have any other offers, I was committed to giving him that $44 million because I believe in the kid. If you look at our roster, we have five or six guys in the last year of their deals, plus David (West) and Roy (Hibbert) can opt out, so don't you think I wanted to keep Lance and Paul (George) locked into long-term deals?''
          That leads me to believe that if Lance told Bird that he wanted us to offer the same contract that Charlotte did then Bird would do in a heartbeat.

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          It was already pretty tough to fit our actual $7.6m offer in without going over the tax. A starting salary of $9m like what Lance received may have forced trading another starter for a cheaper player, which perhaps we weren't willing to do.
          Actually, trading another starter for a cheaper player wouldn't be necessary.

          Take a look at this thread by T-bird -> http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ance-after-all

          Look at option 3. We could release Scola, trade Mahinmi to Cleveland in a S&T for CJ Miles and we would be at $74,937,884 after signing Lance to our 5 year offer with our $7.6M starting salary.

          If we offered Lance the same deal that Charlotte did we would need to move up Lance's starting year salary at $9M which would still leave us under the luxury tax. $74,937,884+$1,400,000 = $76,537,884.

          The estimated salary cap was at $77,000,000 so we would still barely under it without having to trade another starter.

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          As to the report that Lance or his agent didn't give the Pacers a chance to match, I think it's a bit disingenuous.
          I think that the report is that Jordan pressured Lance and his agent to take the offer at that very moment or leave it. I don't really think that Lance had a choice here and that's why I don't believe that the report is disingenuous.

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          It must have been known to the Pacers that Lance was all set to sign the Dallas offer a week earlier. (I'm assuming the Pacers were aware, since apparently there was communication between Lance and the Pacers after the Mavs deal fell through.)
          Did the Mavs ever actually submit that offer? I remember hearing that they had interest in Lance but I never heard that they actually offered him a contract.

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          If the Pacers at this point were still not willing to offer a higher starting salary, wouldn't it be reasonable for Lance to assume that the Charlotte offer wasn't getting matched either?
          It depends on whether the Mavs offer was actually submitted or not. There is no reason to raise your offer if no one else actually submits a better offer than you did.

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          More than anything, it just seemed like the 2 parties were communicating on different wavelengths. One was thinking in terms of total money, the other in terms of annual salary.
          Yeah, I agree with that. Bird certainly hoped to sign Lance to a long term contract.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
            Maybe you didn't read the part in my post where I said, "unless we want to blame Lance for our offense being so awful, it's not crazy to think Charlotte could have a better offense next year." I specifically outlined this possibility because I know how popular of an opinion it is.

            Lance's usage in October (only 2 games), November, December and January: 17.0, 19.7, 18.9, 20.3, respectively.
            Lance's usage in February, March, and April (only five games): 19.8, 20.2, and 16.3, respectively.

            Show me again where his role on the team got bigger? Or are we going back to the "eye test" again?

            I think what is getting overlooked in the explanations for our league-worst offense in the second half of the season is Paul George falling back to earth. He started off the year on a blistering shooting pace; 48.6%, 47.2%, 46.8% with TS% of 63.9%, 58.2% and 61.6% in the first three months.

            Then, in January he falls down to 41% with a TS% of 52.2%, though our record for the month is still 10-5, masked in part by a three game win streak over the Bucks twice, and the Lakers.

            In February, he's at 40% with a TS% of 54.2%, which stays up due to taking 16 less threes than the previous month (helping his 3P%).

            And in March, our worst month by far (we went 8-10), he falls even further to 37% with a TS% of 51.1%. Inexplicably, he figured the best way to regain his shooting touch was to take 25 more threes than the previous month. Despite taking 25 more, he made the exact same amount as in February.

            In April, he nudges it back up to 40.2% with a TS% of 54.7%.

            It seems to me that if we're going to blame a wing player for our offense going down the drain, we should probably look at the higher usage one first, especially since Lance's FG% never drops below 44% (he has five months of 50% or better). If we're going to pin our hopes on Paul George's continued development to carry this team, we can't afford to have him tail off as the season wears on. However, I'm afraid we shouldn't be surprised if this does happen next season, since we'll be asking him to play even more minutes and carry an even bigger load, both on offense and on defense.
            I don't think he was solely responsible for our offensive decline, but he was initiating half court plays more often in the second half of the season. I griped about his play a lot because it changed. Aside from shooting more 3s because he started off the season red hot from range, he was pushing the ball more on fast breaks and scoring more on cuts to the basket and second chance opportunities. I argue against the eye test all the time because people have faulty memories, but after arguing granger was the better player all last off season, I was incredibly happy with Lance's play early in the season but became more frustrated because he stopped pushing temp for us and started stat stuffing.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
              This team is no longer a title contender and is likely a first round exit playoff team for the discernible future.

              Pacers are back to mediocrity.
              My friend, are you willing to be quoted in those two parts?
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                A monster, like Charlize Theron in that movie Reindeer Games.
                he's no tru warier (tho i say that at someone who bought the cd+dvd combo pack)

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                  I think that the report is that Jordan pressured Lance and his agent to take the offer at that very moment or leave it. I don't really think that Lance had a choice here and that's why I don't believe that the report is disingenuous.
                  I don't believe that was ever reported, just speculated on by a person or two here on PD.



                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Did the Mavs ever actually submit that offer? I remember hearing that they had interest in Lance but I never heard that they actually offered him a contract.
                  I do believe that was reported, that they planned to offer the contract. They never did, because they couldn't when Parsons was made available.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Statistics are fine, they are important and even essential to an extent. However I think McKeyfan and myself share the same thought that you can not "not" view a game and gather the mathematics at the end and determine how the game was played and get a true picture of the game.

                    The deeper we get into advanced stats the more I am convinced that the old basic stats are still the most important ones and that a lot of these advanced metrics are subject to interpretation.

                    There is a balance between the two because as you point out the final score is a stat, but I also subscribe to intuition over integers philosophy as well.
                    I'm not disagreeing (I think you and I have shared enough in person to interactions to know I am not slave to stats), but posts like "I just watch the games" or something of that ilk adds nothing to the conversation. Clearly everyone here watches the games or at least tries to catch as many as possible otherwise we wouldn't be on this message board. Stats are just a tool just as our ability to watch the games is also a tool. I just think it's very frustrating to inject stats into a conversation and be countered with something like "I just watch the games", ok, great? So does everyone here, but what else do you see when you watch? There is a balance to both. But being hard line on one side or the other just kills the conversation, it doesn't advance it at all.
                    Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-21-2014, 08:33 PM.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                      Maybe you didn't read the part in my post where I said, "unless we want to blame Lance for our offense being so awful, it's not crazy to think Charlotte could have a better offense next year." I specifically outlined this possibility because I know how popular of an opinion it is.

                      Lance's usage in October (only 2 games), November, December and January: 17.0, 19.7, 18.9, 20.3, respectively.
                      Lance's usage in February, March, and April (only five games): 19.8, 20.2, and 16.3, respectively.

                      Show me again where his role on the team got bigger? Or are we going back to the "eye test" again?

                      I think what is getting overlooked in the explanations for our league-worst offense in the second half of the season is Paul George falling back to earth. He started off the year on a blistering shooting pace; 48.6%, 47.2%, 46.8% with TS% of 63.9%, 58.2% and 61.6% in the first three months.

                      Then, in January he falls down to 41% with a TS% of 52.2%, though our record for the month is still 10-5, masked in part by a three game win streak over the Bucks twice, and the Lakers.

                      In February, he's at 40% with a TS% of 54.2%, which stays up due to taking 16 less threes than the previous month (helping his 3P%).

                      And in March, our worst month by far (we went 8-10), he falls even further to 37% with a TS% of 51.1%. Inexplicably, he figured the best way to regain his shooting touch was to take 25 more threes than the previous month. Despite taking 25 more, he made the exact same amount as in February.

                      In April, he nudges it back up to 40.2% with a TS% of 54.7%.

                      It seems to me that if we're going to blame a wing player for our offense going down the drain, we should probably look at the higher usage one first, especially since Lance's FG% never drops below 44% (he has five months of 50% or better). If we're going to pin our hopes on Paul George's continued development to carry this team, we can't afford to have him tail off as the season wears on. However, I'm afraid we shouldn't be surprised if this does happen next season, since we'll be asking him to play even more minutes and carry an even bigger load, both on offense and on defense.

                      Look at all these stats trying to help out Lance, I just watch the games man.




                      (In seriousness, I agree with your assessment of a lot of the Pacers offensive struggles. PG definitely struggled coming down the stretch last year. Lance was honestly pretty consistent offensively, you won't find me saying otherwise. I just happen to think we can replace his overall offensive impact. Paul needs to be more consistent and less distracted by all sorts of off the court issues whether they be babies or commercials. Paul has said he is aware of that whether or not that ends up being true is yet to be seen. We don't need Paul necessarily to be at his insane Oct, Nov, Dec numbers but he certainly cannot be as awful as he was in March.)


                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                        By athlete, do you mean rapper?
                        No I legitimately mean that George Hill is the best athlete on the team.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          I do believe that was reported, that they planned to offer the contract. They never did, because they couldn't when Parsons was made available.
                          It was my understanding that they would have made the offer to Lance had HOU matched the Parsons offer sheet

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

                            I do believe that was reported, that they planned to offer the contract. They never did, because they couldn't when Parsons was made available.
                            Right, I think it was Stein who said had the Rockets matched on Parsons the Mavs were prepared to offer a 2/20 million deal which Lance was going to then accept.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              I guess if you boil all my thoughts on Lance and the Pacers down to two sentences it would be this. Lance is an extremely talented player who would be hard to replace on a 1 to 1 basis, but I believe the Pacers can and have attempted to replace him by committee. The loss of Lance, while a big question mark from a cosmetic perspective, in reality has very little impact on the 2014-2015 Pacers being better or worse than the 2013-2014 Pacers IMO, whether or not Lance had returned, whether this team improves or declines will be determined by 4 people in particular George Hill, Paul George, Roy Hibbert, and Frank Vogel.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                                I've made only 1 post in regards to this. I have exactly 1 post in this topic before this reply. I have not said it a few times. That, along with everything else you've said here is incorrect. Try harder to state something accurate in the future.
                                Fine it wasn't you, someone did, it's been stated numerous times in this thread, and it's not correct. Regardless, it doesn't make the one time you stated it any less incorrect. Midway does not equal year 3. The essence of the article is fine.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-21-2014, 09:00 PM.
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X