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

Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

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

  • Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

    This looks like it might be worth reading. Are we better off if Lance doesn't make the all star team?
    If someone could post this I would appreciate it.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

  • #2
    Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...urning-indiana

    Sorry forgot the link.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

      I think that it would make little difference if Lance makes the ASG....at this point...its not like GMs don't know what Lance is all about. He'll get paid to the tune of $9 to 12 mil a year....depending on how much the Team wants him.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

        http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...urning-indiana

        Is Lance Stephenson an All-Star?
        Indiana shooting guard might be NBA's most improved player
        Updated: January 22, 2014, 12:33 PM ET
        By Kevin Pelton | ESPN Insider
        2
        0
        2
        EMAIL
        PRINT
        Pacers/Nets
        AP Photo/Seth Wenig
        If Lance Stephenson makes the All-Star team, it could complicate things for Indiana.
        When All-Star reserves are chosen next week, the most interesting question coaches will answer might be the fate of Indiana Pacers guard Lance Stephenson. Stephenson made his pitch to fans with a YouTube video, but the better argument came in last Thursday's nationally televised win over the New York Knicks, which served as a 150-minute Stephenson infomercial. As TNT broadcasters Reggie Miller and Chris Webber argued on his behalf, Stephenson scored a career-high 28 points on 10-of-17 shooting.

        Stephenson's backers can note he's in elite company. On the strength of a league-high three triple-doubles, Stephenson is one of four players in the NBA averaging at least six rebounds and five assists per game. Two of the others are MVP favorites Kevin Durant and LeBron James. (Never mind that the fourth player, Portland Trail Blazers forward Nicolas Batum, is unlikely to be an All-Star in the Western Conference.)

        Watch NBA doubleheader on ESPN
        Tony Parker and the Spurs take on Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder while Paul George and the Indiana Pacers take on Goran Dragic and the Phoenix Suns on ESPN tonight. WatchESPN: 8:00, 10:30 p.m. ET Video

        Looking deeper, Stephenson's All-Star case shows more holes. He doesn't shine by advanced statistics. Stephenson is fourth on his own team in PER (15.7), behind certain All-Stars Paul George (22.6) and Roy Hibbert (17.3), but also forward David West (16.5), who isn't getting any buzz for a third All-Star appearance.

        And while my wins above replacement (WARP) metric has him ahead of West (3.5 to 2.6), largely because Stephenson is able to log more minutes, it also puts Stephenson sixth among East guards behind Kyle Lowry (7.5), John Wall (5.7), Kemba Walker (5.0) and likely starters Kyrie Irving (4.5) and Dwyane Wade (3.9). Worse still, a full 12 East frontcourt players rank ahead of Stephenson.

        The issue is that the Pacers' deep lineup -- the biggest factor working in Stephenson's favor when coaches vote, because they tend to reward players from the league's best teams -- makes his life easier than many of his East counterparts. It's rare for wing players who use plays at a below-average rate (Stephenson is at 19.4 percent, just below the 20 percent average) to make the All-Star team. Per Basketball-Reference.com, only two players (Ray Allen in 2011 and Andre Iguodala in 2012) have done so in the 2000s.

        On a lesser team, Stephenson would surely be a larger part of the offense, but at the cost of his efficiency. Turnovers remain an issue for Stephenson, who has committed them on 17.2 percent of his plays, a below-average rate for a point guard, let alone a combo one.

        It's also worth noting -- as Per Diem predecessor John Hollinger did repeatedly -- that many of the worst All-Star selections in recent memory, such as Mo Williams in 2006 and Wally Szczerbiak in 2002, were a product of coaches rewarding the best teams rather than the best players. Stephenson's selection is likely to hold up better, but it would result from the same line of thought.

        Most Improved?

        There's a stronger case for Stephenson to follow teammate Paul George as Most Improved Player. After going from deep reserve to starter a year ago, he has taken another leap forward this season to put himself in the All-Star discussion. Stephenson spent much of last season staying out of the way on offense, using just 14.2 percent of the Pacers' plays. Not only has he increased his involvement this year, he also has become more efficient by improving his accuracy on 2-pointers beyond the rim from 28 percent to 36 percent, per NBA.com/Stats.

        Stephenson's other numbers are up across the board, fueling his rise to nightly triple-double threat:

        Stephenson: Marked Improvement
        Year Usg TS% Reb% Ast% Win% WARP
        2012-13 .152 .530 7.3 4.5 .438 1.2
        2013-14 .194 .565 10.6 6.8 .542 3.7
        The strongest competition for Stephenson might be former teammate Miles Plumlee, whose Phoenix Suns will face Indiana tonight on ESPN. After playing sparingly as a rookie in Indiana, Plumlee has blossomed into a starter after a summer trade.

        A potentially costly honor

        As much as the Pacers would surely love to see Stephenson recognized as an All-Star (his coach, Frank Vogel, has been stumping on Stephenson's behalf with other East coaches before they cast their votes), it could prove costly down the road. The bargain four-year contract Stephenson signed as a second-round pick (he's making just over a $1 million this season) is almost up, and he will be an unrestricted free agent this summer.

        Using the last five years' worth of free agency, I attempted to predict first-year salary (adjusted for increases or decreases in future years) as a function of their stats the previous season. Seven factors ended up having a statistically significant relationship with salary: my wins above replacement metric, minutes per game, points per game, height (a positive), age (a negative), whether the player was a restricted free agent (surprisingly, restricted free agents made more than expected based on their stats) and whether the player was an All-Star the previous season. Together, they explain more than 70 percent of the variation in player salaries.

        Lance Stephenson, Paul George
        AP Photo/Michael Conroy
        Could Stephenson follow George as the league's Most Improved Player?
        Because these factors match up better with the square root of salary -- that is, salary grows exponentially with improvement in these factors more than it does on a consistent, linear basis -- it's difficult to put an exact dollar value on an All-Star appearance. But when Stephenson's current stats are plugged in (projected to a full season), the model suggests his value would be about $8 million on the open market. If he makes the All-Star team, however, that figure jumps all the way to $12.4 million.

        If that seems like a significant difference, consider the history of free agents coming off All-Star appearances. In the past five years, only one All-Star free agent (38-year-old Steve Nash) has signed for a starting salary of less than $10 million. To find another All-Star who immediately hit free agency and made less than $10 million the following season requires going back to Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who got five years and about $50 million after playing in the 2005 All-Star Game.

        Naturally, Stephenson isn't a good match for superstars like LeBron James and Chris Paul who also were coming off All-Star selections. But including other statistics should account for this distinction, and an All-Star berth still seems to matter. A lot. After all, offering Stephenson eight figures as a free agent sounds far more palatable if teams with cap space can tout adding a 23-year-old All-Star to their fans.

        Stephenson's value is crucially important to Indiana because the team is butting up against the tax line and team president Larry Bird has vowed that the Pacers will not be taxpayers. How much room Indiana will have available depends on where the tax falls next season (which also will determine George's contract, as Zach Lowe has explained). Based on the current projection of $76.7 million, the Pacers would have about $11.5 million available to offer Stephenson if they waive Luis Scola, which would save them $3.9 million in non-guaranteed salary.

        So an All-Star berth could make retaining Stephenson difficult. The good news for Indiana is their $11.5 million will go farther than other teams', because they can offer Stephenson larger raises (7.5 percent annually, as compared to 4.5 percent, a difference of about $1.4 million over four years) and a fifth guaranteed season. They've also earned Stephenson's loyalty by taking a chance on him when other teams were scared off by his trouble off the court.

        Still, if Stephenson is a winner when All-Star reserves are announced, it could be the Pacers that lose in the long run.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

          lol nvm cdash beat me to it

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

            I hope Lance doesn't make the all star team or win MIP and I'd rather not have had it happen for Hibbert and PG right before they signed their last contracts. The Pacers need every penny they can save moving forward if we're going to keep our core together.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

              It does matter somewhat if Lance makes the all-star team. When a GM is going to spend millions of dollars on a player, that's justification he can serve up...particularly if it's a mistake.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                I don't understand the idea that we would want a player not to get the accolades he deserves in order to save some money.
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I don't understand the idea that we would want a player not to get the accolades he deserves in order to save some money.
                  I'm fine with Lance on the all-star team. But if that means he's not a Pacer next year because it was just enough to raise his price tag out of reach, I'd prefer he not make it until later on. The guy has time. Let's lock him up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I don't understand the idea that we would want a player not to get the accolades he deserves in order to save some money.
                    I think the implication here is that not only would the accolades cost us more money, but it might price him out of our range altogether.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                      I hope those numbers for what Indiana will have available are true.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I think the implication here is that not only would the accolades cost us more money, but it might price him out of our range altogether.
                        And if it does, that's our loss.

                        I never EVER want to see someone lose out on honors they deserve so that we can somehow keep them a secret (and, at the same time, pay them less than what the market rate would be if they got those honors). First off, there's no secret there. Teams know exactly what Lance is and what he's worth to them. This isn't like a post-rookie-contract Rose rule situation. Secondly, with the amount of complaining going on that Pacer players never get recognized or picked for the ASG (or, similarly, that we never go after guys who are recognized or have started in the ASG), it seems hypocritical to turn around and be glad he didn't get recognition because - whew - it keeps our money in our pockets.

                        Figuring out how to keep Lance when he is getting these accolades is a great problem to have. It is exactly why people are praising Bird for his drafting - it was designed to put us in this position.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          And if it does, that's our loss.

                          I never EVER want to see someone lose out on honors they deserve so that we can somehow keep them a secret (and, at the same time, pay them less than what the market rate would be if they got those honors). First off, there's no secret there. Teams know exactly what Lance is and what he's worth to them. This isn't like a post-rookie-contract Rose rule situation. Secondly, with the amount of complaining going on that Pacer players never get recognized or picked for the ASG (or, similarly, that we never go after guys who are recognized or have started in the ASG), it seems hypocritical to turn around and be glad he didn't get recognition because - whew - it keeps our money in our pockets.

                          Figuring out how to keep Lance when he is getting these accolades is a great problem to have. It is exactly why people are praising Bird for his drafting - it was designed to put us in this position.
                          That is the other part of the article, and a point that Zach Lowe of Grantland made in his All-Star column from yesterday: Lance might not be worthy of the All-Star accolade--at least not yet. They cite things like advanced metrics and the comically overrated PER statistic. I don't think Pelton's goal while writing this was to encourage Pacer fans to hope Lance isn't in the All-Star game, but just that he's a fringe candidate and the cost/benefit ratio may not be favorable to us long term.

                          That being said, I get what you are saying and generally agree. I do not want someone else to go unrecognized for their work if they truly deserve to be honored just because it might benefit me in the future.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                            If Lance gets to the all-star game, then that's great for him. It will be just another highlight of the Pacers' incredible season.

                            I don't think there is much of a dilemma though. We must pay Lance whatever it takes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers Dilemma (insider request)

                              When it comes to Lance making the All-Star game, I'm less worried about him being priced out of our range than I am of what it might do to his play.

                              Would the All-Star accolade change his mind-set? Would it embolden him to start trying to do too much as a scorer, which he sometimes already has a tendency to do? I'm hoping not, but it does concern me a bit. His strength for our team is that he fits within the team's overall scheme. He's as much a facilitator as he is a scorer. Hopefully his style of play would remain that way.

                              If we're looking at it based on previous All-Star representation for past 1-seeds, then he probably should make it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X