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

IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

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

  • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    I don't know why people think it was an inferior offer. 5 years from now Lance's career earnings will be 60M instead of 45M. He will make more money the route he went. It's on our front office for not offering the shorter term flexibility he wanted.

    I think we're going to win ~30 games, other people think we'll win ~40. Someone open up a thread, set the over under at 35. I'm curious to see what the percentage of public opinion on this is.
    He certainly seems to think he will make closer to 60M. Thats for sure. Nobody else in the league thought he was worth that this summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if nobody does again the next time he's a FA.

    Comment


    • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      He certainly seems to think he will make closer to 60M. Thats for sure. Nobody else in the league thought he was worth that this summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if nobody does again the next time he's a FA.
      Even if he gets paid the same proportion to the cap as he will next year, he will still make a lot more than $44m due to the salary cap increase that will come with the new CBA and TV deal.

      Comment


      • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

        I would gladly trade David West for Lance Stephenson.

        Comment


        • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          He certainly seems to think he will make closer to 60M. Thats for sure. Nobody else in the league thought he was worth that this summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if nobody does again the next time he's a FA.
          The salary cap will be increasing. This is a simple statement of fact. He had a 2 year 20M dollar offer lined up already. If he does 3 years with Charlotte then two for 20 anywhere, that's already 47M...3M more than our offer. The exact same offer, by proportion of cap, will probably be something more like two years 24M. He doesn't need to increase his value at all, even if he stays the exact same player with the market unchanging, he is going to make 47-51M. Substantially more than 44M, especially because of the present value of the money. Money now is worth more than money later. You get to start investing it sooner. He's beating our contract without improving a single bit. The only way he loses is if he completely implodes or gets hurt. I expect him to continue improving and actually do better next go round, but either way, he won financially here.

          Comment


          • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

            Luckily for us, I don't think guys get traded till the trade deadline. With no PG, I do think Hill and Hibbert will increase their value since they'll be much more involved on offense.
            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

            Comment


            • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              I don't know why people think it was an inferior offer. 5 years from now Lance's career earnings will be 60M instead of 45M. He will make more money the route he went. It's on our front office for not offering the shorter term flexibility he wanted.

              I think we're going to win ~30 games, other people think we'll win ~40. Someone open up a thread, set the over under at 35. I'm curious to see what the percentage of public opinion on this is.
              From everything I have heard Lance's camp didn't give the Pacers a chance to match the Hornet's offer. I believe Larry would have matched it FWIW, but it is all spilled milk now.

              Comment


              • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                "Our offer is a 5 year contract." -- "I don't want to sign for 5 years, I want a shorter deal." -- "How about this other 5 year contract?" -- "You aren't listening, I want a shorter contract." -- "This 5 year contract is your final option." -- Lance proceeds to get a 2 year thing set with one team, and a 2+1 option year set with another team. If I were Lance, I wouldn't have come back either. I don't work for employers who don't negotiate. Anyway, that's all speculative. What isn't speculative is that he didn't sign an inferior contract, as so many seem to believe.

                Comment


                • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                  Originally posted by Dece View Post
                  "Our offer is a 5 year contract." -- "I don't want to sign for 5 years, I want a shorter deal." -- "How about this other 5 year contract?" -- "You aren't listening, I want a shorter contract." -- "This 5 year contract is your final option." -- Lance proceeds to get a 2 year thing set with one team, and a 2+1 option year set with another team. If I were Lance, I wouldn't have come back either. I don't work for employers who don't negotiate. Anyway, that's all speculative. What isn't speculative is that he didn't sign an inferior contract, as so many seem to believe.
                  He took 17 million guaranteed over 45 million guaranteed, that is a huge risk no matter what way you slice it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                    People take risk every day. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. He weighed his odds of getting a career ending injury (very low), odds of becoming a less valuable player (lowish), against the odds of being at least as valuable as today (high), or perhaps even much more valuable (lowish). He didn't sign an inferior contract. He's making more money today than he would with the Pacers, and he's taking a calculated risk that will very likely turn out in his favor. I understand why Pacer fans are so salty about it, but they should quit fabricating the story that he spurned a better offer. He didn't. He's making more money today, and has a contract in line with his goals. He won this, not us. We lost an asset without any return.

                    Comment


                    • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                      Originally posted by Dece View Post
                      People take risk every day. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing. He weighed his odds of getting a career ending injury (very low), odds of becoming a less valuable player (lowish), against the odds of being at least as valuable as today (high), or perhaps even much more valuable (lowish). He didn't sign an inferior contract. He's making more money today than he would with the Pacers, and he's taking a calculated risk that will very likely turn out in his favor. I understand why Pacer fans are so salty about it, but they should quit fabricating the story that he spurned a better offer. He didn't. He's making more money today, and has a contract in line with his goals. He won this, not us. We lost an asset without any return.
                      Idk that he won necessarily. We don't know what's going to happen over the next 2-3 years, with the pacers or with Lance. He chose to take a chance on his ability by taking less guaranteed money. It's a calculated risk that most professional athletes dare not take. Its not necessarily dumb, as if he somehow improved by leaps and bounds it could payoff in a big way. It could also blow up in his face. Should be interesting to see how it plays out for the guy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                        Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                        How much of a fan base are you expecting to see? The team was going to struggle (relatively speaking) next season from losing their 2nd best player and replacing him with guys who have been backups on awful teams for most of their careers while ignoring the glaring need (a true point guard/playmaker). They still would've been a top 4 seed in the East, but without PG the team is going to be hard to watch. We've had one of the ugliest offenses in the NBA since Vogel got here, but it's going to hit rock bottom. And Lance was a fan favorite, so you can factor that in as well. The fanbase isn't stupid, they know CJ Miles and Rodney Stuckey aren't going to do much. They know Roy Hibbert kind of stinks these days (hence the boo's). They know George Hill is probably a finished product.

                        I mean, people here are suddenly expecting big things from Solomon Hill*. Seriously. It's already come to this.


                        *I hope he turns into a superstar too. I hope every one of our players turns into Lebron James, but I don't expect it from guys who got no playing time.
                        I expect there to be tons of support for this organization, ESPECIALLY with the injury occurring.
                        Honestly, I don't get why Lance continues to get overvalued by Pacer fans when we have seen him every day over the last 4 years. It's ridiculous to just write off Solomon Hill and anoint Lance when the best we got from him is 13 points and extremely immature and selfish play in a contract year.

                        Like I said, there is no reason to trade everything we have in order to get a higher pick because me might not get it anyway. Unless the players completely crap the bed, show no effort and quit on themselves, there is absolutely no reason to blow it up.

                        Comment


                        • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Idk that he won necessarily. We don't know what's going to happen over the next 2-3 years, with the pacers or with Lance. He chose to take a chance on his ability by taking less guaranteed money. It's a calculated risk that most professional athletes dare not take. Its not necessarily dumb, as if he somehow improved by leaps and bounds it could payoff in a big way. It could also blow up in his face. Should be interesting to see how it plays out for the guy.
                          Lance: Starting NBA player on a contract the length he desired for more money per year than the Pacers offered.

                          Pacers: Starting Rodney Stuckey.

                          ...yea, Lance won. Next question.

                          Comment


                          • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            Lance: Starting NBA player on a contract the length he desired for more money per year than the Pacers offered.

                            Pacers: Starting Rodney Stuckey.

                            ...yea, Lance won. Next question.
                            Pacers won in my book simply by letting him get away. Nobody can convince me that his selfishness wasn't the main cause of the chemistry problems last year.

                            Comment


                            • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                              Originally posted by Dece View Post
                              Lance: Starting NBA player on a contract the length he desired for more money per year than the Pacers offered.

                              Pacers: Starting Rodney Stuckey.

                              ...yea, Lance won. Next question.
                              Why don't you just become a Hornet fan, along with all the rest of the PDers who can't get over the fact that their beloved Lance Stephenson, the Sencend Coming, is no longer a Pacer.

                              We lose the best player we've had img god knows how long to a catastrophic injury and all I see is Lance this, Lance that.
                              **** Lance, he made his choice.

                              Comment


                              • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                Pacers won in my book simply by letting him get away. Nobody can convince me that his selfishness wasn't the main cause of the chemistry problems last year.
                                Probably something to do with Roy "I can't catch a pass and I certainly can't finish for ****, but I need the damn ball more" Hibbert. Selfishness incarnate, really, crying to the media about your touches.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X