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

Post game--A Tale of Two Games

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

  • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I'll make sure to make 100% accurate facetious comments in the future.
    You misrepresented what I said before and with your the hyperbolic remark. But sure man!

    Comment


    • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

      Interesting read on GHill next contract...
      Hill is looking for “big, big, big money”… His people think in this market, He can get max. They think he can get 4 for $132 (million). I think that’s awfully optimistic, but can he get more than $88 (Million, the max Utah could offer in an extension)? And really can he get that 4th year commitment? And is that, say, in the Jazz’s best interest to go that 4th year for him. These are all things they need to figure out this summer, but for the Jazz there is no question they go as George Hill goes. They are a basically .500 team without him. (Instead) they are 17 games above .500 and sitting in the 4 seed so you can figure that out…”
      “It’s difficult to expect George to sustain career bests in scoring and effective field-goal percentage.

      Chief among the reasons why is the uncertainty that surrounds where Hill will play next season. He and the Jazz couldn’t agree on an extension, and if he winds up someplace other than Utah, it’s reasonable to expect the fit will be worse.

      Toss in that Hill will enter his age-31 season, as well as his troublesome injury history (he’s missed 27 games already this season, and he played only 43 in 2014-15), and more signs point to a productivity dip.

      We are watching the best possible version of George Hill this season, so a decline is the only reasonable expectation.”
      “Let me tell you what the executives are talking about. George Hill recently changed agencies. I won’t get into the intricacies of this, but last year a player, Allen Crabbe, changed agencies right before free agency and the next thing you know is he had a gigantic offer sheet from the Brooklyn Nets. The same agency represents Tyler Johnson in Miami, he got a huge offer sheet from the Brooklyn Nets. So there is a belief the Brooklyn Nets have an interest in going there.

      Even if George Hill doesn’t want to play for Brooklyn, that the Nets could make the offer is what is the dangerous part for the Jazz of the Spurs because they can drive the price up…

      …Anywhere the Nets smell the possibility of not getting their offer matched, they’re so desperate to bring in talent, they prefer young talent. But they’re going to be a player in that market. They need all kinds of guards.”


      Holy cow, 30 mill a year!

      http://purpleandblues.com/2017/03/15...zz-retain-him/

      Comment


      • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

        Like I said in the random thoughts thread, this business model is not sustainable. In no universe is George Hill bringing $132 million dollars of value to the team/league. I'm not picking on him, these contracts are being handed out left and right and I'm sure Teague's will be downright nuts too. The bubble will burst from these contracts, plus Lebron won't be around forever to carry so much of the league's water.

        Comment


        • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

          I really hate to bring this back up (not really) but I think is unfair to judge this current team to last year's team just because I'm pretty sure last years "core" set of players had been together for several years. It would be more accurate to wait until at least next year to judge Nate and this new "core".

          Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Like I said in the random thoughts thread, this business model is not sustainable. In no universe is George Hill bringing $132 million dollars of value to the team/league. I'm not picking on him, these contracts are being handed out left and right and I'm sure Teague's will be downright nuts too. The bubble will burst from these contracts, plus Lebron won't be around forever to carry so much of the league's water.
            The amount of money isn't crazy, it's giving max to 31 year old GHill. It's a bad move. Harden, Westbrook, Durant are maxed. You don't max GHill.

            Brooklyn can afford it. They're the only team that can drive up point guard price like that.

            The NBA bubble won't burst if that's what you mean. But teams overpaying my be hurt. But then again Pelicans seem to be buyers even though they signed Solo to 13 mill a year.

            Comment


            • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

              I'm going to laugh so hard at the team that gives George Hill more than 20mil a year, hell I'm going to laugh at whoever offers him more than 15 mil lol
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                Interesting read on GHill next contract...








                Holy cow, 30 mill a year!

                http://purpleandblues.com/2017/03/15...zz-retain-him/


                I'd pay Hayward $30 mil a year. I still have an issue with Hayward having so few 30 pt games in his career. But I believe pairing him (or Blake) with Paul raises our profile. More televised games, larger fan base, more sports show chatter, etc. Hill is a good player. He was good here in Indy. His issue is he really isn't a point guard. He's more of a combo/shooting guard. Er go, he didn't work here in Indy as a point guard. Maybe, had they not forced him to be one things would've worked out differently. Perhaps our (my) frustration with Hill was because the team tried to make him play a position that simply isn't in his blood. But despite all of that, no way in ever loving heaven is he worth $30 mil a year because of his health issues.

                Comment


                • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                  Brooklyn will overpay one of Holiday/Hill/Teague and the other two will get fairly paid (whatever that is in this NBA). Noone else is giving these guys that sort of money in a league that is already over-saturated with PGs.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                    I love Jeff Teague, but we'd be making a huge mistake giving him a long term deal over 15 million per year.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                      I keep telling you guys, get used to the new numbers, they're here to stay.

                      Max for GHill is pretty ridiculous, but if you look at the other FAs, it's not very obvious who else should be getting the megabuck offers. GH is having a career year at exactly the right time.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                        Originally posted by JB24 View Post
                        Brooklyn will overpay one of Holiday/Hill/Teague and the other two will get fairly paid (whatever that is in this NBA). Noone else is giving these guys that sort of money in a league that is already over-saturated with PGs.
                        I think Teague will get Somewhere in the $16 to 20 mil range. I think he'll stay because it's Indy. MAYBE, one of the NY teams "comes for him" but that's a MAJOR media market which means MAJOR pressure and criticism. You see what the Knicks are going through, Teague doesn't seem like the type who wants any part of that. Also neither of those teams have a 26 year old borderline superstar player. Melo is old and injured. Porzingis seems to be showing signs of being injury prone. Nets have no star. They could've if they had kept those draft picks but I doubt Teague sees a team of just Brook Lopez and some dudes as an attractive basketball match.

                        The Nets seem to be lasering in on George Hill. Knicks I have no doubt will restart talks with the Wolves for Ricky Rubio. Phil likes him a lot. So the only team that could try and challenge us for Teague with $$$ would be Philly. But most likely, the Sixers will draft a point guard.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          I keep telling you guys, get used to the new numbers, they're here to stay.

                          Max for GHill is pretty ridiculous, but if you look at the other FAs, it's not very obvious who else should be getting the megabuck offers. GH is having a career year at exactly the right time.

                          Missing half of the season is not a career year in my book.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            I love Jeff Teague, but we'd be making a huge mistake giving him a long term deal over 15 million per year.
                            You know Rubio makes 13...under old contract structure. We would be lucky to get a healthy starting point guard in their prime for 15.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                              As for Hill, hey, if you think at 31 he's going to stay healthy then pay him, but max? No way. Jazz would be crazy. 95 mill for Gobert, Hayward, Favors and GHill is bad.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Missing half of the season is not a career year in my book.
                                I suppose for George it's a career year. It boils down to what you think he is. I think he's a solid starting combo guard who defends pretty well. He's never going to be the straw that stirs the drink, so he's not your ideal PG. He's also not consistently explosive offensively so he's not an all-star level guard. But he's just a notch below that which isn't bad. He's having a very good year if you ignore the rest he gets every few games.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X