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

Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

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

  • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    I was wrong about the Hibbert signing and so I will reserve judgement but the longer this goes on the more I dislike our options. Lance to me may have a mental hurdle that he can't get over but to me I know Hill and Hibbert have a basketball talent hurdle that I deem near impossible for them to overcome in any consisitent way.
    Hill showed ability to still score and be efficient with not making turnovers, I think his issue is coaching, and how he is used, but for Hibbert, it seems to be more complicated
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

      Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
      Lance earned himself and cost himself a lot of money at the same time lol

      We didn't do anything like this with the other free agents. Here, you have 15 minutes to accept the offer or else. Hell Roy was about to get on a plane to Portland.

      Lance has made PENNIES by NBA standards for four years. To not even allow him to seek out other offers is pretty harsh if that's what happened. I'll see what happens before blowing too big of a gasket though.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        We didn't do anything like this with the other free agents. Here, you have 15 minutes to accept the offer or else. Hell Roy was about to get on a plane to Portland.

        Lance has made PENNIES by NBA standards for four years. To not even allow him to seek out other offers is pretty harsh if that's what happened. I'll see what happens before blowing too big of a gasket though.
        I seriously doubt it played out like that. From the reports, it sounds like the Pacers made an offer, and Lance's side wanted something higher--probably significantly higher, or else they probably would have been able to meet in the middle somewhere.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
          Just in case this was directed at me... I didn't say our team without Lance would be "horrible" I said it's bye bye with the title aspirations for the next couple of years IMHO. Maybe being in the post season and merely beying a bit of an obstacle for the contenders is what makes you enthousiastic. I can tell you it wouldnt do it for me. I want this franchise to always strive for the top.

          Goodluck with our backcourt that remains (if Lance leaves) plus a random MLE player that gets added. I just don't see it. AT. ALL. Unless its a player that has the potential to breakout with us, but that means said player hasnt done that elsewhere during his rookie contract, previous multiple contracts or went undrafted/didn't get a quaranteed contract... all that screams "risk" much more to me then trying to keep Lance.

          Not for 5/60 milion or something, but we have to do what we can and is sound for our title aspirations. Losing him for nothing or some worthless S&T (hi there, Scott Pollard!) would be a move that I believe will haunt us long into the future.

          I understand the losing Lance for nothing, BUT Lance and the trading team has to agree to a S&T. If neither wants to agree, a S&T doesn't happen. There is no guarantee a S&T is possible, and if not, you lose Lance for nothing.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            I seriously doubt it played out like that. From the reports, it sounds like the Pacers made an offer, and Lance's side wanted something higher--probably significantly higher, or else they probably would have been able to meet in the middle somewhere.
            I don't want to jump off of a cliff when things aren't finished playing out. But I just think that Lance's side wanted to see what else was out there. If nothing better was out there, then the Pacers deal would have looked pretty good.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              We didn't do anything like this with the other free agents. Here, you have 15 minutes to accept the offer or else. Hell Roy was about to get on a plane to Portland.
              We doubt we did "you have 15 minutes to accept or else" thing with Lance either. You'll remember that we made Roy an offer before Portland did. All Lance is doing is his due diligence and shopping around, just as the Pacers are with Stuckey. Something is definitely brewing with the front office, and I think it involves Scola for sure, and possibly Copeland and Ian as well.
              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Between that and other reactions you'd think we'll be once again stuck in mediocrity (1-and-done or high lottery) for another 3 years without Lance.

                Two years ago Lance didn't have nearly the role he did this year. What changed that suddenly we're not even at that level without him? Don't give me the usual "Pacers are the only team in the East not to get better" offseason mantra.

                I don't think Lance is worth breaking the bank over. I don't think Pacers' attendance is going back down to JOB levels without Lance. I don't believe Larry Bird is some kind of idiot who is incapable of having a viable backup plan that has a chance of working. I don't think George Hill is an incompetent backcourt player.

                Will we be contenders? At this point, I don't know - most people thought we were contenders this past year and look what happened. I don't tend to make that decision until we actually see what we have.
                Because Hibbert wasn't horrible then, West wasn't as old as he is now and his production is slowing down, Hill seemed to be more aggressive. I don't know. I just know we are half the team we can be without Lance....He's the 2nd best player on the team.....

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                  Originally posted by immortality View Post
                  He would have left, and then we would have been stuck with out a PG or Darren Collision starting again. It's like you think we can just pick up a starting PG of the street and put him in the one of the best starting 5's in the league.

                  Yeah, that worthless POS DC who started 56 games b4 being injured only to lose his starting job to Hill due to an injury. Hill had 56 games to take the PG job away from DC, and couldn't do it. You think Hill is some great PG, then I feel sorry for you. He's a SG in a PG body with a SG mentality. Combo guards are a dime a dozen.

                  Who was going to sign Hill? Who even bothered to give him an offer sheet? I'm definately interested in seeing the answers to these questions?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                    Originally posted by timid View Post
                    Because Hibbert wasn't horrible then, West wasn't as old as he is now and his production is slowing down, Hill seemed to be more aggressive. I don't know. I just know we are half the team we can be without Lance....He's the 2nd best player on the team.....
                    Don't know where you get half from, and for those who think Roy is going to be as bad as he was during the playoffs or at the end of next season I wouldn't be so quick to make that assessment, he will have a lot of time over the summer to figure out what is going. Maybe he will figure it out and maybe he won't but I doubt he will be anywhere close to how bad he was... He literally has improved every offseason after working on some area of his game.
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                      Originally posted by Really? View Post
                      Don't know where you get half from, and for those who think Roy is going to be as bad as he was during the playoffs or at the end of next season I wouldn't be so quick to make that assessment, he will have a lot of time over the summer to figure out what is going. Maybe he will figure it out and maybe he won't but I doubt he will be anywhere close to how bad he was... He literally has improved every offseason after working on some area of his game.
                      What are you basing your confidence on? The last 3 seasons he went from 50% to 45% to 44% shooting. Rebounds went from 8.8 to 8.3 to 6.6. We've had a extended look at him over several seasons. Much like with Hill, what we saw is what we should expect. If we get better production then that's awesome. But to count on it would be very foolish, given the body of evidence.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                        This organization is clueless if they essentially put Ian Mahinmi, CJ Miles, and/or Luis Scola above Lance Stephenson.

                        Seriously, what do you people expect? Forget signing Miles, how are you going to get rid of Scola and Mahinmi w/o taking back salary? You can't wave a magic wand and make things happen to suit you. Are you expecting Simon to lose millions going into the LT to keep Lance?

                        Bottom line is LANCE TURNED DOWN A REASONABLE OFFER. Lance wants more and there was only so much water in the well. The Pacers didn't have it to give it! END OF STORY

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          We didn't do anything like this with the other free agents. Here, you have 15 minutes to accept the offer or else. Hell Roy was about to get on a plane to Portland.

                          Lance has made PENNIES by NBA standards for four years. To not even allow him to seek out other offers is pretty harsh if that's what happened. I'll see what happens before blowing too big of a gasket though.
                          I meant in the way of how his "intensity" made him money but also cost him money.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                            cheer up, we found the movie they made for Lance


                            Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              cheer up, we found the movie they made for Lance


                              Original Video - More videos at TinyPic
                              LMAO!!! LACNE joined basketball gang and got good?

                              hahaha FAIL



                              credits by Larry Bard
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers Offered Lance 44 Million and he turned it Down?

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                They have to have 13 men on the roster, and this isn't NBA 2k14 it is real life. You can't just move, get rid of players with ease.
                                THANK YOU 100X

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X