Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

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

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

    The idea that we could have just come in and matched this offer is a bit fanciful. If the Pacers had let Lance, or his agent, or competing teams, come to believe that any offer to him would be matched, Miami would have offered him $20 million a year.

    Sure, the Pacers could have done an about-face, but that would have made everyone view their new negotiation style as 'b.s. up front then give players whatever they want later' and that would surely have cost them $$$$$$$$$$$ down the road.

    It's easy to say "it's just $3 million" but in the end it's always just a bit more. Lines have to be drawn somewhere; there is always another million just across the line.

    Comment


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






      Never forget

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        Oh yea, I don't gerald henderson. I'd rather take Gary Neal. He has NBA finals Experience.
        so does pete myers.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          Lance did it for basketball reasons, imo, not for money reasons.

          Some of you think that is really, really stupid, but for someone like me who doesn't think money is the most important thing in the world, I find it kind of refreshing. I think I would do just fine for the rest of my life if I had $18 million coming my way.

          What are the basketball reasons? I think a lot of this has to do with Vogel being a very strong defensive coach but not so strong on the offensive end, along with Vogel being somewhat hampered by his personnel (Hibbert struggling, Hill not a pg, PGeorge not quite efficient just yet).

          My hunch is that Lance was willing to continue in a slower offense (not his best match) with guys that either aren't good on the offensive side or not matched for their position, if he was on a team that was a defensive juggernaut that had championship potential. But it also looks to me that the Pacers defense has been somewhat figured out. The best teams give Roy a tear drop or they sent him out to the perimeter. A stretch five seems to put to bed our defensive brilliance. We're still good, but not great.

          Paul George's greatness is not as a brilliant offensive player. He can be very good, but his greatness is as a two way player. His greatness is now a bit deflated with Roy exposed as a weakness, now on BOTH sides of the floor.

          Anyway, all that to say, Lance put up with a lot of mediocre play on the offensive end (both of the centers couldn't catch a pass from him) in order to see the team win. He considered taking Indy's offer, or one slightly better, and still not being a flashy, "the man" kind of player. But, heck, that also can be quite fun to watch, and why not head to Charlotte where there is a chance of being on the rise, along with a pretty well respected coach. Maybe he'll know a little more about offense. (I'm bummed McRoberts left; I think he and Lance would have been a great duo. Not a fan of Marvin Williams.)

          So, when I say basketball reasons, I am including the idea that Lance will have a chance to play in a well coached offense and he personally will have a better chance to be a key part of that offense. Personally, I never thought he was used to his top capability in Indiana, and I thought the decisions of how PGeorge was never leashed and George Hill was allowed to bog things down really showed weaknesses in Vogel's ability to coach offense. So, for basketball reasons, on both sides of the floor, I can see Lance's motivation to move to Charlotte.

          It will be a risk—$40 million or whatever vs. $18 million—and joining a new playoff team with potential rather than an established ECF finals team. But Lance has always been about taking risks.

          P.S. So, Sollozzo, in response to your comment, I think the Lance fans such as myself are happy for Lance that he will have a chance to be all that he can be somewhere else. With the coach here and the contracts already signed, there just may never have been a real way to make it work long term in Indiana. Bird screwed up by offering Lance a four year rookie contract that did not allow for an extension. Lance would be locked up now for about $4million if he had.
          Charlotte is not really the place to get more freedom offensively though. They were basically Indiana-lite last year. Very poor offense that likes to play inside out, good defense, high usage player on the perimeter. Their coach is respected in the same way Vogel is respected around the league, but there is no indication that he knows how to build a great offensive system.

          I think Charlotte is going to be pretty good, but it doesn't really make sense as a fit from Lance's perspective either. He does get a stretch four which will open up some driving lanes, but Charlotte is a poor three point shooting team that will have spacing issues.

          Essentially, there are several teams that Lance might have fit better with basketball wise than Indiana, but Charlotte isn't likely to be one of them.

          Comment


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

            How much more will Jordan brand pay than And1?
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


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

              Holy hell we lost Lance because we didn't want to save money and offer a shorter deal. What a disastrous move by Larry.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                I think Hibbert went through some really tough crap last year. Unfortunately, the causes of which are still around in Indy, and I just don't see him really moving on until he's not on the team. I hope I'm wrong...
                Then we have to move the franchise to Seattle, to make Roy feel better.

                Comment


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






                  Never forget

                  Comment


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

                    It seems that Lance wanted to take the gamble that a shorter contract could lead to a bigger pay-out with the new CBA. However, if I'm the Pacers, I'm not sure they want Lance "playing for a contract" again in two years, with the sometimes selfish play he had in the second half. His next contract would've been at 28, so I don't buy that it's his entire basketball prime.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      It'll be interesting to find out what exactly has happened. According to the story on ESPN, we were unwilling to give him a shorter deal. This entire situation is weird as players TYPICALLY want a longer term commitment, while a team TYPICALLY wants the shorter termed commitment.

                      I don't think Bird could have waited too long on bench help as players were going off the market left and right once Bron signed.

                      Let's wait until we hear EVERYTHING before we start pointing fingers.
                      The situation in 2 years isn't typical at all because of the leap in the cap/lt expected from the new TV deal.

                      I think the Pacers are very leery of having a Miami situation where all their big players go FA at the same time. That's one reason they wanted not to have Lance on a short contract.

                      Another reason is because they feel they are taking all the risks and yet were confident Lance would meet their expectations. They were willing to risk that Lance would implode and be untradeable in exchange for locking him up at a reasonable salary. Lance thinks he'll be so good that salary would be undervalued.

                      The irony is that his contract with Charlotte is a miserable failure in that he only hits the new cap/lt market if the Hornets decide he's not good enough to keep at the current salary.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        If it was all about Lance punishing the Pacers for being horrible except for him, he'd have taken the Miami 2-year MLE offer and told Larry to go have carnal knowledge with himself.
                        But if it was all about Lance being a locker room disruption, they wouldn't have offered him a five year deal.
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          It'll be interesting to find out what exactly has happened. According to the story on ESPN, we were unwilling to give him a shorter deal. This entire situation is weird as players TYPICALLY want a longer term commitment, while a team TYPICALLY wants the shorter termed commitment.

                          I don't think Bird could have waited too long on bench help as players were going off the market left and right once Bron signed.

                          Let's wait until we hear EVERYTHING before we start pointing fingers.
                          Yeah it just doesn't make sense to me, unless we lowered our offer to the point it wasn't comparable.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                            They already have a ballhog Pg, why would they get a ballhog SG? Makes no sense to me. It's somewhat a cheap shot from Lance but you can't blame the guy, he thinks he's Gods gift to the world and with the salary cap going higher and higher, he's bound to make a lot more in a couple years than he does on this contract, IF he keeps it together.


                            I'm just as mad as the next guy for him picking another team but I'm not gonna go as far to say we are better without him. He's got crazy talent and that guy is as aggressive as it gets. There will be a slight drop off from last years team to this one currently. But maybe guys like Hibbert, Hill and PG24 will step up and fill the gap.



                            Why is it posters feel the Pacers will be playing 4 on 5 if CJ Miles is playing? He's not a dead piece of wood with no value or ability.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              It'll be interesting to find out what exactly has happened. According to the story on ESPN, we were unwilling to give him a shorter deal. This entire situation is weird as players TYPICALLY want a longer term commitment, while a team TYPICALLY wants the shorter termed commitment.

                              I don't think Bird could have waited too long on bench help as players were going off the market left and right once Bron signed.

                              Let's wait until we hear EVERYTHING before we start pointing fingers.
                              To me it makes it seem as if Larry had a plan to go in one direction, but only if Lance was willing to commit long term. Otherwise they preferred to go in another direction that they see as being better long term.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                                No PR to it at all. People who want to believe that Lance was the cause of all of Roy's problems will hate that tweet though.

                                Why would Roy do a "PR" tweet about this? He sure didn't hide his feelings when O'Brien was let go.
                                You have missed the smileys I see.
                                Never forget

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X