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

What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

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

  • #91
    Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    REALLY!

    Then why didn't the Pacers have one prior to getting Scola? Why did Bird have to trade his 013 1st rd pick Plumlee and the 014 pick to get a b/u PF then?

    THEY AREN'T EVERYWHERE!
    Backup PFs ARE everywhere. Scola is a great one and would be a starter on a bad team. But my goodness, if the Pacers chose to keep two declining players on the wrong side of 30 over a dynamic, improving 23-year-old...I don't know where to start. It wouldn't be keeping Kendrick Perkins over James Harden bad, but it would be in the same category.

    I LIKE SCOLA. I swear I do. I would keep him and let Lance walk if he commanded more than $12 M. But if the options are keeping a freaking backup PF and a 1-time All Star with surgically repaired knees that's notorious for slow starts over a shooting guard whose presence has helped create one of the best starting lineups in the NBA over the last two years and continues to improve, you keep the shooting guard. You keep the shooting guard if you want to compete now and long-term.

    The Spurs have been playing fat Boris Diaw and Matt Bonner at backup PF and they seem to be doing OK.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      My question: Are you guys willing to get rid of Scola this summer to make the $ work, if that's what it takes?
      Absolutely and without question. Scola is already going to be 34. He will be done soon.

      I wouldn't hesitate for a second to pay Lance 10M/yr (if I had it). If he gets any better, which could happen if he improves his shot further...his pay check will rise further.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        But the current Granger isn't a competent replacement for the current Lance. Granger cannot pass, score, push the ball, and rebound like Lance. Lance is simply a superior player to Granger at this point. I'm not trying to rip on Granger, because he has been a solid wing off of the bench. But it is what it is. Not only is Lance great, but he also makes his teammates better. Lance's agent will also be able to sell the fact that Lance and PG are the exact same age and could potentially play their entire careers together.
        Yes, Lance is playing like an all-star on a fairly regular basis. Danny is shadow of his former self. On top of that, Lance is currently playing as well as Granger ever has played when you account for his assist, rebounds and complete game. Danny's 20+ppg happened on sub .500 teams that specialized in the 3 point shot. That's not good basketball as we saw in the JOb era.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          One of those 9 players is Granger. Can the Pacers re-sign Granger even if they let Scola go with paying Lance a near max salary?
          Again, someone will have to run the numbers based on the assumption that GH is dumped for literally nothing ( which I think will be near impossible to do and would cost the Pacers assets that they cannot afford to lose ) and Lance is signed to some $12+ mil Starting Contract.

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          Then what about being able to re-sign Hibbert?

          Not aiming this at you, so don't think I am. Too many are only looking at the present with no regard to the future.
          I mentioned this already in another thread. I think that the Pacers will have more options and flexibility when it comes to making a MAX level offer to Hibbert while retaining Lance at whatever price he is eventually paid ( even to the tune of $12 mil ). Unlike this upcoming offseason....the Pacers have far more Capspace in the 2015-2016 offseason since CJ, Copeland and Scola come off the books. It will be difficult to fill the roster....but not impossible.

          Look at what the Spurs have done and you can see what direction this Team would have to take....essentially build around a core set of Starters with Mix-N-Match Players that fit their System and role.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

            What am I willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance.... what ever Larry feels is right for the team.
            I would rather be the hammer than the nail

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

              Anyone who thinks Lance is making less than 10m a year is hilarious. IF we get him for 10m a year that will be a steal! Dude is leading the league in triple doubles and is our most consistent player all year. If G hill gets 8m a year, that pretty much tells you that Lance will at least get 10. I will be so happy if Lance gets 10 that will be such a good deal for our franchise.
              Last edited by Jon Theodore; 01-24-2014, 09:44 PM.
              *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                My question: Are you guys willing to get rid of Scola this summer to make the $ work, if that's what it takes?
                Anyone who would rather have Scola than Lance needs their head checked.
                *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                  Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                  Anyone who would rather have Scola than Lance needs their head checked.
                  If it were just Scola then you're right but it's not. It's would you rather have Lance or Danny, Scola and Hibbert. I think I'd take Danny, Scola and Hibbert.
                  Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                    Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                    Anyone who thinks Lance is making less than 10m a year is hilarious. IF we get him for 10m a year that will be a steal! Dude is leading the league in triple doubles and is our most consistent player all year. If G hill gets 8m a year, that pretty much tells you that Lance will at least get 10. I will be so happy if Lance gets 10 that will be such a good deal for our franchise.
                    The bold times 10. David West, at nearly 34, is being paid 12M/yr. Yes, he's worth that. Lance's value is in that neighborhood. Goodness gracious we paid Troy Murphy about that much to help win 40% of our games.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                      Lance > Granger and Scola (combined) all day long. I love what Lance and Granger bring to the table, this is the best Pacers team we will probably ever see but we have to be realistic going forward.
                      *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        The bold times 10. David West, at nearly 34, is being paid 12M/yr. Yes, he's worth that. Lance's value is in that neighborhood. Goodness gracious we paid Troy Murphy about that much to help win 40% of our games.
                        We paid Troy Murphy that to get someone to take Stephen Jackson.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                          Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                          Anyone who would rather have Scola than Lance needs their head checked.
                          That is not the real question any more in this discussion.

                          If push comes to shove...would you rather rather part with Scola OR GH in order to keep Lance?

                          My initial answer is Scola cuz I don't think that the Cap situation will be good enough to get a Quality Starter with the remaining $$$.

                          However, I cannot provide a real answer to this question without knowing what the Cap situation will be assuming if GH is somehow ( magically IMHO ) sent to another Team without getting any Salary Back ( while IMHO likely costing assets that we can no longer afford to lose...like future draft picks or Solo ). If GH's salary is somehow removed from the Salary Cap equation....do we have enough to sign another Starter Quality Player ( whether it be Granger or someone else ) with the remaining $$$ before hitting the LT? If the answer is that we'd have less then the full MLE....then I'd rather dump Scola, keep GH and then sign a Backup PF with the remaining $$$ left on the books to sign before hitting the LT.

                          To me, it's easier to replace a backup Player than it is a Starter.

                          EDIT - here is my calculations:

                          Dump GH / Keep Scola:

                          Assuming the following:

                          - No Players are traded EXCEPT for GH and that some Trade is worked out where NO 2014-2015 Salary is taken back.
                          - The option to pick up Sloan and OJs contract is made ( they earn the vet minimum...so no point to cut them )

                          The Pacers would have roughly $60 mil in guaranteed Salary owed to 10 Players. That would mean that the Pacers would have about $15.7 mil to spend before going into the LT.

                          If Lance goes for $12 mil ( let's hope a worse case scenario ), that would mean that the Pacers have about $3.7 mil to sign 2 Players....one of which can be a Starter.....unless someone from the 2nd unit is bumped up to the Starting lineup ( maybe Solo, OJ or CJ ).

                          Dump Scola / Keep GH:

                          - Assuming that Scola's unguaranteed contract is not picked up.....all that will be owed him and go towards the 2014-2015 books is the $940,906 that is owed to him. The $940,906 ( I assume ) will count towards the 2014-2015 Salary Cap.
                          - The option to pick up Sloan and OJs contract is made ( they earn the vet minimum...so no point to cut them )

                          The Pacers would have roughly $64 mil in guaranteed Salary owed to 10 Players. That would mean that the Pacers would have about $11.7 mil to spend before going into the LT.

                          Assuming that 2 Veteran Players are signed at $850k each ( which has to be done ), that would mean that the MAX that the Pacers could offer him is a Contract that has a 2014-2015 Salary that STARTS at roughly $10 mil ( NOTE - a 2014-2015 Salary that starts at $10 mil does not immediately translate into a $40 mil contract....the Pacers can offer higher raises per year...so the Total Contract offer would be more than $40 mil TOTAL ).
                          Last edited by CableKC; 01-24-2014, 10:46 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                            Another thing that needs to be considered more than it already is: Paul George can play just as well at the 2 as he can at the 3. If Lance does go bye-bye, we should also be thinking about potential SMALL FORWARDS to bring in. It doesn't have to be about keeping Danny.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                              The bottom line is that Lance is becoming a star. You don't let budding stars get away. Having a wing duo of PG and Lance is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a franchise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                We paid Troy Murphy that to get someone to take Stephen Jackson.
                                True. MDJ too. But we also paid Croshere something like that. The point is, we've had some incredibly bad contracts and a couple slightly overpaid guys are not going to hurt this franchise. The bench can be filled with decent talent on the cheap. What we cannot afford is to lose perhaps our 3rd most valuable player. That is who I think Lance is or will soon become.

                                The more I look at the salaries on the team, the more I know he is cracking 7 figures and will be paid roughly 42M over 4 years.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X