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

Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post





    And there you have it.

    We chose to go with CJ Miles and Damjan Rudez. SMH

    EDIT: I hope I was wrong about Lance's negative effect on the team, I really do.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Pacers lost some talent here, which in general is rarely a good thing. However I do believe there are some current Pacers players relieved today, some of the core players. We'll see what if anything the pacers can do now to replace a starter, but I am not panickng.

      Do we try to get a point guard and move Hill to the two. Or replace a shooting guard.


      also an obvious question, anyone on the Hornets we might like to do a sign and trade?


      Move Hibbert and Hill. Hibbert to OKC with Solo for Lamb and Jackson still makes sense. OKC needs a big now that they've lost out on Gasol. Jackson is due for a re-sign next Summer. A headache for OKC with the Ibaka, Durant, and Westbrook money already on the books. If we take back Kendrick Perkins in the deal it should/could get done. As for Lance, if he signs with Charlotte.......

      .......I don't blame him. He doesn't wanna come back to a team where the point guard has no heart and no passion. Where a center can't even catch lob passes and get off the ground. Hill and Roy were a pain in Lance's but last season. No wonder he's bailing.
      Last edited by Grimp; 07-16-2014, 10:47 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        If it was all about Lance punishing the Pacers for being horrible except for him, he'd have taken the Miami 2-year MLE offer and told Larry to go have carnal knowledge with himself.
        Lance is not acting out by himself. He has a reasonable agent behind him as well as others who can give him adult advice. I believe they think that in two years they can convince GMs that Lance is worth a whole lot more than what he is getting now and that the guy who blew in LBJs ear has grown up.

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
          But if it was all about Lance being a locker room disruption, they wouldn't have offered him a five year deal.
          OK, not sure where that comes in with my argument. The total number was due to the uncertainty, the length was because they were confident they'd come out on the right side of it. Betting they are right but giving Lance a shorter contract would be betting against themselves because it would end up costing them a lot later.
          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


          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            And there you have it.

            We chose to go with CJ Miles and Damjan Rudez. SMH

            EDIT: I hope I was wrong about Lance's negative effect on the team, I really do.
            *sigh*

            No one is going to change anyone's mind. I guess it is easier to decide Larry Bird is a total idiot who doesn't know what Lance is capable of.

            I choose to believe that the flexibility was all in the agent's mind and that Larry actually meant what he said when he kept repeating he had a number and he wouldn't go over it.

            As a society we seem to have gotten so used to people lying that when they say something and it turns out that way we think it is because they were lying and then screwed up so they couldn't do anything but what they said they were going to do.
            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


            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million




              Never forget

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                Originally posted by jjbjjbjjb View Post
                There's plenty of boxscores on the Internet for those of you who don't like reading about people.
                I like the players, I like to hear about them. I don't like this "connect the dots" ******** that goes around so often. Basically, there's a ton of Skip Bayless clones in the sporting world that pull things out of their *** for shock value that people take as truth.

                I like reading about athletes. I don't like probably 90% of sports writers and probably 75% of the so-called experts. I mean, they're not involved with an NBA franchise for a reason.
                "man, PG has been really good."

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                  Just speculation, but it sounds like the average money was ok from the start by Lance, but he wanted it in a shorter time frame. In other words, he wanted 2/18 or 3/27 instead of 5/44. He wanted the ~$9M/yr for shorter years. The Pacers could only start at the $7.6M the first year. So they could offer shorter contracts for less money, something like 2/16.

                  Also speculation, the Pacers really made one offer of 5/44 at the start of free agency. When Lance didn't take it, they went ahead and signed CJ Miles and Damen. After that, their new offer started at a lower starting salary. The $5M or so that was left under the apron.

                  Originally posted by immortality View Post
                  Why didn't Pacers give him the shorter contract?
                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Ironically, probably because they agreed with Lance that he'd become a very good player so they wanted to lock him up longer term. Sort of the opposite of disrespecting him.
                  Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                  Help me out, were the Pacers not able to re-structure their deal to accommodate Lance in less years?

                  Do you amateur capologists believe that signing Miles prevented Bird fron re-structuring his original offer to accommodate Lance?

                  Did we REALLY want Lance back?

                  I would love to hear the answers to these questions.
                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                  Yeah it just doesn't make sense to me, unless we lowered our offer to the point it wasn't comparable.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                    Blah-blah-blah-blah.
                    Can you ever make a post without throwing in some freakin' unrealistic trade possibility ?? Good God .............

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                      So based on Candace's tweets, does that mean that we tried to lower our offer to Lance? Makes it seem that way.
                      I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                        Damn it Larry!! DAMN IT!!
                        Lance never wanted the long term deal. Most teams would jump at the chance to sign a questionable personality like Lance to a short term deal.
                        Last edited by graphic-er; 07-16-2014, 10:34 AM.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                          Larry Bird doubles CJ Miles last contract in both years and salary. But wont' give lance a 2-3 year deal....
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                            This is how I feel right now....

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Lol. You do realize he took LESS money to play elsewhere right?
                              He didn't take less money. If you really look at the first 3 years of the Pacers offer, he will make about 5 million more on this deal. Not a lot more money but it is more and if he plays as good as he thinks he can, he can get a new deal sooner.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                                Originally posted by The Sleeze View Post
                                So based on Candace's tweets, does that mean that we tried to lower our offer to Lance? Makes it seem that way.
                                No, it means we wouldn't shorten it.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X