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 BlueNGold View Post
    Losing Lance could make this a better team. There is no I in Team. I am convinced that Lance has been the main problem now. As you say, he is worth 12M/yr but that ignores the baggage and issues he causes with team mates. He's an entertaining player and I was driving the bandwagon. But the offer they gave him was a slight smack in the face. He definitely has more talent than George Hill and that offer is a clear indication that they are willing to part with him...and they must have a good reason.
    If the team doesn't really want Lance then why offer anything?? Just ask his agent for a number... then no matter the number say it's too high and don't counter it. And why the dog and pony movie for Lance if they don't want him?

    There's reading between the lines and then there's over-thinking things.

    They made Lance a nice offer. It may or may not be a take it or leave it offer (maybe there's some more NBA Monopoly Money to throw in the kitty... or not). But it was more than enough to be 'acceptable'.... which would be pretty crazy for a team that didn't actually want a player on their team. I mean the risk is he'd take it.... So not only would you be stuck paying a player you didn't really want all of your cap/luxury space money, but for several years too. Plus whatever time and money you invested in a movie to entice him to sign with you.

    None of this adds up to me to say "Lance was a problem or the problem and so they are pushing him out the door to get rid of the problem"
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


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

      good. just let him go.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        Ignore the grand title but look at the facts presented: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ading-rudy-gay

        They had the 3rd best record in the league post-trade and they lost to the Spurs in the Western conference finals last year. This year, they had a slow start due to implementing their new coach's offense and then dealt with injuries throughout the year and still took the Thunder to 7 games.

        If they didn't get better, they definitely didn't get worse. I don't think losing Lance makes us better, but I don't think it makes us worse unless Lance begins playing like he did the first month. I do think we will be a better team overall next year whether or not we have Lance.
        Well Idk I don't think Memphis was ever a serious threat so maybe I just wasn't as impressed with their WCF Finals appearance as you were, but I see them as a team that needed to shake things up.

        If I remember correctly, they added ZBo and he didn't really mesh well with Rudy. Plus he was making around 20 million dollars at the time and coming off a serious injury. Either way I don't see them being a legit threat to the top western conference teams at this point and they are stuck in no mans land with not enough resources to improve, just hoping for a lucky late first round draft pick. Which is right where I don't want us to be. It took us 4 years to wait on Lance and I don't think it's realistic to expect the team to add a guy of that talent level for a long time.

        That isn't our situation at all anyways. We reached the ECF WITH LANCE, two years in a row. And he's still improving. Gay was already an established player who had topped out and they had built around him long before that, plus they didn't have any real success until AFTER he left the lineup.

        We are taking a step back, they weren't taking anything away from that WCF team.
        Last edited by Taterhead; 07-03-2014, 05:01 AM.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


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

          If Lance signs with the Bulls there will be a poster who lives in my signature infamy forever.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
            They got better? I don't think they got any better. They actually got worse. And they definitely aren't contending for titles.

            That's exactly the kind of team we will be.

            That's your right to feel they didn't get better, but being a Griz fan Gay wasn't missed that much. Is Prince a better player? Absolutely not, but Gay didn't make that team any more than Stephenson makes the Pacers. And Gay hasn't made any other team a Top contender, and this comes from someone who in Gay's career would have traded Granger for him.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses. If he isn't playing well with his team mates...and Bird concludes that will not change...there is really no point in retaining him even if he were LeBron James. Lance has to be a good team mate. I love his talent as much as anyone on this board and it stinks if things don't work out. But sometimes you have to cut your losses. I would rather see that than another Artest situation.
              There is really no point in retaining even if he were Lebron James....?

              Another Artest situation....?

              Dude, you need a serious reality check. You would seriously let LeBron James walk?


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                If the Pacer's F*** up and Lance ends up signing elsewhere , in a way I can see WHY Jordan wants Lance on the Hornets... I believe Lance reminds him of himself in a lot of ways... ESPECIALLY the competitiveness, fearlessness , chip on shoulder and pushing himself to get better at the game.. And CLEARLY Lance not only has all the tools, but the basketball IQ and court vision to have a seemingly limitless ceiling..... much like Michael Jordan himself...

                I REALLY REALLY fear that MJ will come in and try and snatch him from Bird.... even moreso than the chances of Chicago or Lakers of doing it..

                I can see the competiveness in MJ wanting to take Stephenson away from Bird. Personally, I don't feel Stephenson is the answer for Charlotte as I see their need is a good SF as in Chandler Parsons.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                  If Lance signs with the Bulls there will be a poster who lives in my signature infamy forever.
                  For me, objectively, Thibideau would be a great coach for Lance, imo. Direct and Old school, challenge him with bravado to get better and sacrifice for the team. 4 years down the line they may hate each other, but for awhile I could see it being really good.

                  Comment


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

                    I will be so upset if Lance is let go. 23 years old, has improved in each of the 4 seasons in the league (cut the contract year talk, dude took a step from year 3 to year 4). This team should eventually be built around PG and Lance. You have to find a way to keep him, even if it means letting Hibbert/Hill/West go.


                    @Pacers24Colts12

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      If the team doesn't really want Lance then why offer anything?? Just ask his agent for a number... then no matter the number say it's too high and don't counter it. And why the dog and pony movie for Lance if they don't want him?

                      There's reading between the lines and then there's over-thinking things.

                      They made Lance a nice offer. It may or may not be a take it or leave it offer (maybe there's some more NBA Monopoly Money to throw in the kitty... or not). But it was more than enough to be 'acceptable'.... which would be pretty crazy for a team that didn't actually want a player on their team. I mean the risk is he'd take it.... So not only would you be stuck paying a player you didn't really want all of your cap/luxury space money, but for several years too. Plus whatever time and money you invested in a movie to entice him to sign with you.

                      None of this adds up to me to say "Lance was a problem or the problem and so they are pushing him out the door to get rid of the problem"

                      I understand your thinking, but out of courtsey you make an offer even if you don't want him back. I would hope Bird learned from not handling the McBob FA properly. Stephenson is a better player, so you make an offer that you feel is not insulting. Just b/c you make an offer doesn't necessarily mean you really want him back. Do you need an upset former player circling the calendar just waiting to play you. You don't want to give any extra incentative to that player. It's due diligence and courtsey.

                      Comment


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

                        Don't know if it's news or not, but i just heard on the radio that the offer we gave Lance was the max we are going to offer and it's still on the table for him to take it or leave it. But that is ALL we are going to offer. Sounds like bird wasn't lying and he had a number and isn't going above it


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses. If he isn't playing well with his team mates...and Bird concludes that will not change...there is really no point in retaining him even if he were LeBron James. Lance has to be a good team mate. I love his talent as much as anyone on this board and it stinks if things don't work out. But sometimes you have to cut your losses. I would rather see that than another Artest situation.
                          I just don't think it's fair to compare Lance to Artest. Has Lance been suspended for flagrant fouls? Has Lance destroyed a camera at MSG? Lance has been an excellent citizen since he became a productive member of this team. He has had multiple opportunities to erupt on the court and do something truly foolish, but he always keeps his emotions in check. There is no way that the Pacers would offer him $44 million dollars if they wanted nothing to do with him. You don't offer someone that kind of money if you really want him gone.

                          What is the biggest concrete piece of evidence against Lance? That Hibbert called him out after the NY game? I'm just not going to put much stock anything Hibbert has to say after he just had one of the most inexplicable collapses of any all-star in NBA history.

                          David West, who has a reputation for being no-nonsense, seems to love playing with Lance. He always has his back in postgame comments and the two of them have an excellent on the court chemistry.

                          PG overall seems to like playing with him.

                          Lance has cut into Hill's place on the team, so I wouldn't be surprised if that factors into Hill being annoyed with him.

                          Overall, Lance has shown quite a bit of maturity. Just two years ago he was a bench warmer who was most famous for giving Lebron James a choke sign. Flash forward two years and he's getting all-star hype while playing for a massive contract after seeing all of his teammates get big deals. That is just a ton of stuff for a young guy to deal with. His basketball life has done a complete 180 in a very short amount of time. Overall, I think he has conducted himself very well. You gotta gamble on him to continue to improve.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                            There is really no point in retaining even if he were Lebron James....?

                            Another Artest situation....?

                            Dude, you need a serious reality check. You would seriously let LeBron James walk?

                            I believe the Artest comparison was in reference to a possible PR nightmare not to Artest mentally, and I can understand that. There are times when Stephenson is out of control. The Pacers don't need another PR nightmare to remind the public of problems of Artest and others. It's taken years for the public to accept the Pacers again, and millions in lost dollars to ownership.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              I believe the Artest comparison was in reference to a possible PR nightmare not to Artest mentally, and I can understand that. There are times when Stephenson is out of control. The Pacers don't need another PR nightmare to remind the public of problems of Artest and others. It's taken years for the public to accept the Pacers again, and millions in lost dollars to ownership.

                              Lance is easily one of the most popular Pacers at the Fieldhouse......way more popular than Artest ever was. I think most fans understand the difference between the two. Lance would have to do something truly idiotic to get on Artest's level.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I just don't think it's fair to compare Lance to Artest. Has Lance been suspended for flagrant fouls? Has Lance destroyed a camera at MSG? Lance has been an excellent citizen since he became a productive member of this team. He has had multiple opportunities to erupt on the court and do something truly foolish, but he always keeps his emotions in check. There is no way that the Pacers would offer him $44 million dollars if they wanted nothing to do with him. You don't offer someone that kind of money if you really want him gone.

                                What is the biggest concrete piece of evidence against Lance? That Hibbert called him out after the NY game? I'm just not going to put much stock anything Hibbert has to say after he just had one of the most inexplicable collapses of any all-star in NBA history.

                                David West, who has a reputation for being no-nonsense, seems to love playing with Lance. He always has his back in postgame comments and the two of them have an excellent on the court chemistry.

                                PG overall seems to like playing with him.

                                Lance has cut into Hill's place on the team, so I wouldn't be surprised if that factors into Hill being annoyed with him.

                                Overall, Lance has shown quite a bit of maturity. Just two years ago he was a bench warmer who was most famous for giving Lebron James a choke sign. Flash forward two years and he's getting all-star hype while playing for a massive contract after seeing all of his teammates get big deals. That is just a ton of stuff for a young guy to deal with. His basketball life has done a complete 180 in a very short amount of time. Overall, I think he has conducted himself very well. You gotta gamble on him to continue to improve.
                                It may not be fair but lest we forget, we are the team that is seen as being at fault in the Brawl. Another "character" on the Pacers and the FO and ownership will start to be questioned about their tactics/ethics by the rest of the NBA and the public in general. So years after the incident I think we are still being penalized for Ron Artest being on our team.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X