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

  • #31
    Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
    Kind of odd, but whatever. It is done with now. I have mentally moved on.
    Yeah, this is where I'm at. Over it, past it, let's move on.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      To say something like this is to completely ignore how important Hibbert has been the the Pacers success and failure the past 3 seasons. I can't believe someone could have watched the Pacers the past 3 seasons and not realize how much more important Roy is to the Pacers than anyone else on this team. Lance's importance to this team doesn't even compare to Roy's.
      In other words: when Roy plays at his beas we are truly one of the elite teams, when he plays poorly we tend to struggle. I don't think anyone can truly argue otherwise.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-20-2014, 07:15 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
        Am I the only one who read that article and came away with the impression that Kravitz slanted it in a completely different direction than Bird's comments intended? It's almost like he had a narrative already and then sprinkled in a couple quotes from Bird to fill in the blanks.

        How can you have access to the team and all the resources available to actually do some real journalism and come away with some message board fodder?



        Was the bolded part really necessary? Regardless, contracts aren't structured by averages. Kravitz would know the Pacers' actual first year offer of $7.6 million if he actually wanted to tell the truth rather than slant his article in an intended direction.



        Lance Stephenson's first two years: $9 million + $9 million = $17.5 million? No, Bob, your math is not right. And it's not "just a tad" more. It's about $3 million.



        Wrong again.



        Except you can't put options in the middle of guaranteed contracts,. Again, Kravitz would know this if he did some actual work once in a while.

        Via Larry Coon:
        http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q59



        Back to Kravitz:



        Except they'd have to deal with the luxury tax had he accepted the 5/44 offer as well. And I'd say $9 million with a team option for $9.5 million in the third year is pretty close to eight figures.

        Ultimately, Kravitz derives Lance's worth from what the Pacers were able to offer him, not what the Pacers wanted to offer him. There's a difference, and you get an appreciation for that difference when you hear Bird say things like this:



        Whether people like Kravitz want to rationalize losing Lance by taking shots at his game or his character to make themselves feel better about losing him or by implying he "wanted to leave" as part of a PR campaign to make the other side look worse in negotiations is another story. But this article, to put it simply, is pure garbage.
        Yes this is a terrible article by a terrible writer. Mistakes and spinning quotes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          Can we now put away the idea the Pacers didn't want Lance back? Of course they wanted him back... You don't waste money on producing an inhouse movie/documentary to entice him to return, let alone offer a market value 5 year contract if you don't really want him back.

          I will forever think the Pacers thought a 5 year guaranteed contract at current market value would trump anything else Lance might get barring someone opening the vault. And so thought ultimately Lance or his agent would decide a bird in the hand was worth 2 in the bush and take the security.

          OTOH, Lance seems to live in the moment and enjoyed being tutored by an NBA Legend like Bird. He probably assumes the relationship will be the same with Jordan... and if he enjoyed that attention from Bird I can only imagine he'd relish the chance to have MJ in that role. Although he might be jumping to conclusions about whether Jordan will actually play that role for him. Or have the same tolerances and expectations.

          Then I'm sure he or his agent thinks they'll both be cashing in in a few years. Which might be true... or not.

          But in the end... I don't think it's a stretch to say the Pacers wanted to keep Lance and are surprised they weren't able to make it happen.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

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

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
            Like I've said all along, don't blame Larry, don't blame Lance, blame Lance's agent.

            I wouldn't be shocked if Lance fires him within a year or two.
            really? how? if an adult completely hands one of the most important decisions of his life to someone else and is not able to figure out even the most obvius aspects of that decision, that tells me one thing about him. he's a certified idiot.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              I don't blame Larry at all. He gave Lance a more than fair offer. Lance just has $$$$ in his eyes, which I don't blame him for really either. What I am sick of is hearing how Lance was offended by the Pacers offer. How he expected 12 to 14 million, after how he behaved, especially in the post season, this man is hearing some bad advice. Which is why he will be getting 9 mil a year. He has far more to prove than he seems to think he does.

              It sucks that Lance is gone, he's a dynamic player. But I think the Pacers will be fine. I hope we make another move, but if not, it just means next man up. This team was in the ECF when Lance was still a nobody. We we're arguably a better team. And if his antics really did harm the locker room, then things might get better. We need PG to continue to grow, which I fully expect. We need West to be our rock, which I fully expect. We need Roy to be the all star year round, which I'm very unsure about. We need Hill to be aggressive and lead, which I'm also unsure about. Quite frankly we needed those things whether Lance was here or not. And those are really what will determine how good this team will be.

              Also we need the bench to not be god awful.

              We need to see a different team this year, that was the case with or without Lance. Maybe without Lance it will be easier to become different.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                I don't blame Larry at all. He gave Lance a more than fair offer. Lance just has $$$$ in his eyes, which I don't blame him for really either. What I am sick of is hearing how Lance was offended by the Pacers offer. How he expected 12 to 14 million, after how he behaved, especially in the post season, this man is hearing some bad advice. Which is why he will be getting 9 mil a year. He has far more to prove than he seems to think he does.

                It sucks that Lance is gone, he's a dynamic player. But I think the Pacers will be fine. I hope we make another move, but if not, it just means next man up. This team was in the ECF when Lance was still a nobody. We we're arguably a better team. And if his antics really did harm the locker room, then things might get better. We need PG to continue to grow, which I fully expect. We need West to be our rock, which I fully expect. We need Roy to be the all star year round, which I'm very unsure about. We need Hill to be aggressive and lead, which I'm also unsure about. Quite frankly we needed those things whether Lance was here or not. And those are really what will determine how good this team will be.

                Also we need the bench to not be god awful.

                We need to see a different team this year, that was the case with or without Lance. Maybe without Lance it will be easier to become different.



                Sorry, but until Hill is gone and one of our bigs is traded in for a younger, quicker, athletic floor-runner who can also shoot? We ain't goin' no place.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  The thing that I keep coming back to is that it would have been in his agent's best interest for Lance to take the Pacers offer. Maybe he will still be Lance's agent in two or three years when the new contract is up but still...
                  Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                  I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    Call me crazy now, but if Bird sticks around and Lance opts out in two years, it wouldn't surprise me if he makes another run at Lance in free agency. It is pretty clear from this article that he wants to maintain a good relationship with Lance.

                    This is not wishful thinking, just an inclination. I am personally ready to move on and see what this team can do next year. Is it November yet?
                    Last edited by idioteque; 07-20-2014, 07:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      To say something like this is to completely ignore how important Hibbert has been the the Pacers success and failure the past 3 seasons.
                      so Hibbert should get extra money because he can play so badly that the entire team goes in the toilet.
                      Last edited by dal9; 07-20-2014, 07:52 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                        Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                        so Hibbert should get extra money because he can play so badly that the entire team goes in the toilet.
                        No the difference is Roy was restricted and the market set his price. The pacers decided to match it. With Lance it looks like they offered him pretty close to the market and unfortunately the Pacers didn't get a chance to match or not.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Lance wanted to be the star on the team.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                            Even if it the overall contract was less per year than the 3 year deal Charlotte offered. Having the protection of 5 years with a player option is a no brainer vs a 3 year at slightly higher but with a team option
                            Not if you think you are worth much more and rather use the coming few years to improve your worth. He also almost was never injured, dude is really freaking strong build, so he wanted to take that chance. I dont see it as stupid, retarded, dumb or whatever.

                            His agent will probably have some explaining to do, also am wondering if Bird and co. actually had talked about that player option and shortercontract with Lance and/or his agent OR they had the intention of proposing that in further negotations that they at the very least seemed to expect were very likely to happen, given that they probably thought they were in the saddle in these negotiations with so many team not beying able to offer enough money to Lance.

                            Were they actually still actively negotiating or merely waiting for him to come to them and had they expressed these points of a shorter contract and a player option beying a possibility? Those are the main questions I would find interesting to know.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              Originally posted by PacerPenguins View Post
                              Lance wanted to be the star on the team.
                              Exactly this, and with Paul George here, that was never happening, regardless of how much people liked Lance.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                                I think Kravitz is right on the couple thousand dollars more per year average, his Hornets contract on average is like 300k more than the Pacers per year.
                                the way to look at it, from Lance's perspective:

                                Indiana's offer vs Charlotte's offer, purely by cash.

                                2014/2015...........Indiana $7.640 million, Charlotte $9.000 million....difference of $1,360,000
                                2015/2016...........Indiana $8.213 million, Charlotte $9.000 million....difference of $787,000
                                2016/2017...........Indiana $8.829 million, Charlotte $9.500 million....difference of $671,000
                                2017/2018...........Indiana $9.491 million+, Charlotte $0 FREE AGENT (in Lance's mind: 15 million)
                                2018/2019...........Indiana $10.203 million+, Charlotte $0 FREE AGENT (in Lance's mind: 16 million)


                                so Lance gets 2.8 M more over 3 years,


                                and in his mind anyway, 11 M more over the last 2 years


                                now our 3 year offer, we just don't know what it was
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X