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

    Yeah because we need soft nice guys like Roy Hibber and George Hill... Lance played hard every game and brought this team many victories... seems like a lot of pacert fans care more about personality than winning... truth is you no one knows how these guys are in real life... I worked for the Pacers.. Ron Arrest was one of the nicest guys I've ever met..andReggie was an *******...loosing a competitor like lance is really going to hurt this team... but at least we got G Hill... *** on man

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
      Well, enjoy your time on Hornets Digest.
      Is that supposed to be funny?
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


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

        Only if more fans understood this fact

        Comment


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

          Include me in the group of people who wanted Lance back, but can't fault the Pacers front office for this one. It does make it a little easier to swallow knowing there's probably nothing the Pacers could have done short of ridiculously overpaying.

          Honestly, not sure how I'll feel about Lance going forward. Can't decide if I'll continue to root for him or if now he'll become a villain in my eyes.

          Comment


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

            Just found out this morning. MAN am I floored! This guy gives up $26 Million in guaranteed money for a chance to Max out 2 years sooner? His agent is terrible! The 3rd year for Charlotte was all about his Bird rights, and now Lance will miss out on the new CBA Free Agency year. Maybe that is a good thing. As he might be the one of the best players on the table in 2017 along with Parsons? LOL!
            I mean really its like world class stupidity from Lance's camp. This dude was all about getting paid, and he turned down more money, so that he might be able to be the man in Charlotte. I mean thats the only explanation. He is immediately their best wing player and the offense will flow through him and Al-Jeff.

            Even more hilarious for the Hornets is that they let McBob go, and signed Williams to a 2/14mil deal and McBob got a 3/21mil in Miami. They could have kept McBob and had Lance. That would be a good pairing. Williams is terrible, barely starting quality.

            Lance was insulted by the Pacers offer, but the Bobcats offered Hayward a Max deal!
            I can't believe Lance. I'd be okay if he went to a team that offered him big money, but to turn us down for an almost identical deal in year 3? Screw HIM! I can't wait to boo his *** next year. I hope West and Hibbert put him on his ***.
            Nobody treats Larry like this!! He will be a marked man next season!
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


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

              I think this is a move that will eventually make the Pacers better via addition by subtraction. Lance brought a lot of energy to this team at times when they were playing lethargic and that will be missed. His overall impact on the game was not nearly as positive as his stats would indicate. I doubt if our rebounding suffers at all with Lance moving on. I would have rather had Lance on a shorter deal anyway and I wonder if something like this was offered to him. For a guy that claimed he was staying with the Pacers and wanted to stay it's strange that he took a lesser offer with a team option in year 3 to leave, that would have been an ideal structure for the Pacers IMO and it shows the risk that the Bobcats feel they're taking in Lance. I think there is a lot more to this then we know now and if there is I expect things to come out soon.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                Is that supposed to be funny?
                Well, no. He seems to be more of a Lance fan than Pacers fan -- so -- go follow Lance.

                Comment


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

                  Even though Lance was a talented player I have to hand it to Bird for not panicking and over pay for him.

                  Comment


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

                    People are really over valuing Lance here. I know its not a perfect stat but his PER was below the league average. Thats pretty telling. Its like the board is the jilted Ex, only remembering the good and not remembering the bad.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                      CJ miles was actually more EFF than Lance last year IIRC correctly.
                      Actually no, not even close.

                      Miles 8.5
                      Lance 17.1

                      Only thing I can figure out on this is Larry did indeed lower his offer to Lance after the initial 5 year 44 million, and Lance was offended by that. No way this is over 200k. And to me, if he's worth 8.8, he is worth 9.

                      Dumb move no matter how you look at it.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


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

                        Right now, the Pacers are a worse team than they were a year ago. That bothers me. But this should be the best litmus test anyone will ever see for how much chemistry makes up for on-paper talent, and how much Lance Stephenson affected chemistry either way.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Smits Happens View Post
                          . . . Honestly, not sure how I'll feel about Lance going forward. Can't decide if I'll continue to root for him or if now he'll become a villain in my eyes.
                          Put me in the group that thinks Lance was a major part of the problem last year, still wanted him back next year and will cheer for him at Charlotte going forward. I am eager to see the Hornet games next season.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by FinPacers View Post
                            Just wondering, are they going to use Henderson and especially Neal all that much anymore? I mean, we could use even Neal - not to mention Henderson, of course. There might be incentive for the Hornets to shed some salary in order to get more room under the cap.
                            Actually a while back I read an article by Bruno on 1070 The Fan that suggested if Charlotte signed Lance, we may be able to trade for Henderson.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              Actually no, not even close.

                              Miles 8.5
                              Lance 17.1

                              Only thing I can figure out on this is Larry did indeed lower his offer to Lance after the initial 5 year 44 million, and Lance was offended by that. No way this is over 200k. And to me, if he's worth 8.8, he is worth 9.

                              Dumb move no matter how you look at it.
                              I meant Player Efficiency Rating on there. My bad

                              Lance 14.7
                              Miles 16

                              Comment


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

                                I find this part of the article most interesting. I doubt if his decision was really about the length of the contract.

                                http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11...7-million-deal

                                "Reports throughout the negotiation process with Indiana have often strayed from the truth but suffice it to say that it was less about the money.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X