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

Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

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

  • #16
    Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

    I trust Larry to do the right thing with this. The only reason we should extend Roy now is if we get a discount over signing him this summer. Otherwise, if it takes the same money we're better off signing him in the summer and getting the additional year. The max for Roy is a contract starting at just over 13 mil, and Roy doesn't think he's a max guy.
    I don't think an offer starting around 10 mil is an insult but anything starting at more then 12 mil for an extension doesn't make sense.

    If Roy doesn't think he's a max guy, I wonder what he does think and what # he has in mind. They can't be that far apart.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      I trust Larry to do the right thing with this. The only reason we should extend Roy now is if we get a discount over signing him this summer. Otherwise, if it takes the same money we're better off signing him in the summer and getting the additional year. The max for Roy is a contract starting at just over 13 mil, and Roy doesn't think he's a max guy.
      I don't think an offer starting around 10 mil is an insult but anything starting at more then 12 mil for an extension doesn't make sense.

      If Roy doesn't think he's a max guy, I wonder what he does think and what # he has in mind. They can't be that far apart.
      You leave more questions open than a (oops)

      1: where is your "FAITH" in Larry based upon? and i mean that, outside of letting contracts go to their end (not trading them) what has he done that make him something you trust with delicate things like this ?

      2: Don't re-write what Roy said, he said "MAX guys get extensions straight away, so i will wait till summer.
      that does not say he dont think he is, it says LB dont think he is, because they have not done that extension for the max. Soooo hus agent has told Roy, keep it up and you WILL get that max this summer, if not from LB than from NY or LA or NJ or Dallas, someone will want to give that kind of dosh to you.

      3: Obviously they are far apart, otherwise they would all say it is very well possible we get it done, small chance not, but than we can work it out at the end of the season.

      It does not take the same money and it does make a difference and the ONLY differnce (financially) (outside of that 5th year they can also give now if they want, and IF Roy wants it) is approx $ 650,000 per annum.
      so 3 million over 4 years, on a 55 or 58 million contract, not that much.

      Saying here is your extension, 5 yrs, max, sign it, says a lot, holding out, trying to get a bargain, it costs loyalty and in the end money.

      Stubbornness is sometimes good, most of the time a very bad trait.

      P.S. I personally think if they offered 12- 12.5 p/a (4/50 5/64) he would have signed it.
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

        Originally posted by able View Post
        Considering they clearly have not offered enough so far (the Pacers that is) I fear with great fear this could be Roy's last season for the Pacers.
        I may be wrong about this, but can't the Pacers offer Roy a better deal when he becomes a RFA than they can now? I thought a contract extension was based on a percent inicrease per year of his current contract, but that goes out the window once he becomes a RFA.

        If that is correct, the team could offer him more this summer than they are allowed (by rules) to now.

        Am I wrong about that?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
          I may be wrong about this, but can't the Pacers offer Roy a better deal when he becomes a RFA than they can now? I thought a contract extension was based on a percent inicrease per year of his current contract, but that goes out the window once he becomes a RFA.

          If that is correct, the team could offer him more this summer than they are allowed (by rules) to now.

          Am I wrong about that?
          They can extend him for the same amount as they can sign him as an RFA(the short version)
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

            If Roy doesn't get extended now, I won't think the sky is falling.
            LB has done a great job up until this point of spending money wisely. He didn't spend money on bad contracts this past free agency period and I want him to make every effort to keep Roy at the right price. Every dollar he saves on every contract only helps the team in the future. If it ends up taking the max then so be it, but that should wait until the summer. Roy doesn't get to select another team over the Pacers at the same money, he's restricted so if we match he's ours and I think if it plays out that far Larry will match. I see very little chance that we'll lose him.
            The only way that happens is if Roy's production falls way off as happened last year and Larry doesn't think he's worth the money.

            My thoughts on the additional year is this and correct me if I'm wrong.

            If we extend Roy now doesn't this year count against the max # of years allowed in the contract? A 4 year deal would be this season plus 3 and a 5 year deal this season plus 4. If we wait until the summer don't we get to keep Roy under contract for 1 more season?
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

              Originally posted by able View Post
              You leave more questions open than a (oops)

              1: where is your "FAITH" in Larry based upon? and i mean that, outside of letting contracts go to their end (not trading them) what has he done that make him something you trust with delicate things like this ?
              Maybe the faith is because we are 11-4 and have a very solid young team?

              He didn't just let contracts expire. He added players to the roster to replace him. Collison, Hibbert, West and Hill didn't just pop out of thin air. He has also drafted very well.

              And what do you mean "not trading them"? What about trading Murphy for Collison? He's playing pretty solid right now. That was a steal if I've ever seen one. He also turned our draft pick this year into a guy who has been a huge contributor.

              You have to have assets to make moves in this league. We had little assets in recent years. The players who other teams would have wanted were guys that we actually wanted to keep (Hibbert, Granger). No one wants over-priced garbage like Murphy, Ford, and Dunleavy. The fact that we were able to trade Murphy is a miracle. You don't think Bird was on the phone trying to get some sucker to take Ford or Dun? But no one wants overpriced junk like that. The only option he had was to let the contracts expire.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Maybe the faith is because we are 11-4 and have a very solid young team?

                He didn't just let contracts expire. He added players to the roster to replace him. Collison, Hibbert, West and Hill didn't just pop out of thin air. He has also drafted very well.

                And what do you mean "not trading them"? What about trading Murphy for Collison? He's playing pretty solid right now. That was a steal if I've ever seen one. He also turned our draft pick this year into a guy who has been a huge contributor.

                You have to have assets to make moves in this league. We had little assets in recent years. The players who other teams would have wanted were guys that we actually wanted to keep (Hibbert, Granger). No one wants over-priced garbage like Murphy, Ford, and Dunleavy. The fact that we were able to trade Murphy is a miracle. You don't think Bird was on the phone trying to get some sucker to take Ford or Dun? But no one wants overpriced junk like that. The only option he had was to let the contracts expire.
                If i answered this it would derail the thread, let it suffice that i totally disagree with you and consider he has had far more bad drafts then good ones.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  If i answered this it would derail the thread, let it suffice that i totally disagree with you and consider he has had far more bad drafts then good ones.

                  Well some of what I said is fact that cannot be disagreed with. You said that he let the contracts expire and didn't trade them when in fact he traded the biggest one (Murphy) for a player who is currently our starting PG.

                  The first draft Bird was around for was 2004.

                  2004: Drafted Harrison with the last pick in the first round. Yeah, Harrison didn't work out, but it was the last pick in the first round. Most of the players picked in the second round behind him are out of the NBA.

                  2005: Granger. I don't need to say anything about how well this has worked out.

                  2006: Shawne Williams. It was a clearly a bad pick that didn't work out for us and it would be nice if we chose Rondo instead. But lots of teams whiffed on Rondo and wish they could have that one back. This is comparable to Donnie Walsh picking George McLeod when Tim Hardaway, Kemp, Barros, and Blaylock were still on the board.

                  2007: No pick

                  2008: Drafted Rush and Hibbert. Hibbert's success speaks for itself. Rush was decent in his three year career though he ultimately didn't work out.

                  2009: Hansbrough. He has been a decent bench player here. I understand that many would have rather had Lawson or Collison, but that doesn't make Hansbrough a "bad" pick. He has produced here.

                  2010: Paul George. Obviously a fan favorite on this forum with tons of potential.

                  2011: Traded the 15th pick in a weak draft for George Hill. Leonard looks like he will be decent, but we needed a proven player as we already have a bunch of young projects on the team. Plus George is still young himself. That move has worked out very well.


                  I want to know where you are getting that he had "far more bad drafts than good ones". 2006 was bad, no question about it. 04 you can't say was bad because we had the last pick in the first round. 05 and 08 were huge successes. 2010 is viewed as a huge success on this forum as most here are big PG fans. Trading the pick in 2011 for Hill has worked out well. I get that someone wishes we had someone other than Hansbrough, but it's not like Hansbrough is a scrub who can't get on the court. He has contributed here.

                  I see one draft (06) where everyone can say: "yeah, that was a bad draft pick." But I see several where you can say "yeah, Bird made a good choice there"

                  What players should he have drafted? What years aside from 06 were bad? I don't see how you can say he has had more bad drafts than good ones.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                    if you want to discuss this, do it in a new thread, not in this one.
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                      08-11 are the only years you can rate Bird on. Donnie was the GM through the 2007 season.

                      But we've already had this conversation, and nothing has changed, because people like to look at Bird and voice their opinions on him, rather than his actual job.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        08-11 are the only years you can rate Bird on. Donnie was the GM through the 2007 season.

                        But we've already had this conversation, and nothing has changed, because people like to look at Bird and voice their opinions on him, rather than his actual job.

                        I think Bird was always in charge of the draft when Walsh was here, so it is fair to judge him on pre-08 draft picks like Granger and Shawne Williams.

                        I'll start a new thread, able.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                          I may be wrong about this, but can't the Pacers offer Roy a better deal when he becomes a RFA than they can now? I thought a contract extension was based on a percent inicrease per year of his current contract, but that goes out the window once he becomes a RFA.
                          Personally, I doubt Roy's leaving. Money talks, of course, but he's not particularly monetarily motivated. He stayed an extra year at Georgetown to get his degree and to try to get a national title when leaving after his 3rd year (with terrific games against a lot of people) made a lot more $$$ sense.

                          Roy likes it here. There's a comfort zone, loyalty factor that influences him. If we give him a fair deal, my bet is he stays. We're building something good here. He's a big part of it, knows that, and I think he wants to see where it goes.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            I think Bird was always in charge of the draft when Walsh was here, so it is fair to judge him on pre-08 draft picks like Granger and Shawne Williams.

                            I'll start a new thread, able.
                            The point is that we don't know. Was it Bird, or was it Walsh? Personal opinion is going to vary, because there isn't anyway of knowing until they tell us.

                            Able doesn't like Bird, so therefore, it's Bird's fault. Someone else could not like Donnie, so therefore, it's Donnie's fault.

                            Who's right? It doesn't matter because facts aren't the point. Personal vendetta is.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                              True. All that really matters is this: Look at our roster at the end of 07-08 and look at it now. That tells me all I need to know about Bird's strength as a GM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                                It is 99.9999999999999999999% that Roy will be a Pacer for the next 4+ years. I can't believe anyone is worried about this. They're waiting because neither side knows how much Roy is worth yet because the season is still fresh and we know from the past that Roy can go hot/cold, and if that weren't enough we are slightly more flexible with roster moves if we wait, so an extension ain't (and was never) happening.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X