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

Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

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

  • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    Yeah, but you should have a 3rd PF too. West and Scola are both getting older; you'd like to have somebody waiting in the wings for those minutes.

    I'd be happy if it was LaVoy, honestly.
    Whittington will be a power forward in the NBA.

    Comment


    • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

      Hmm I feel like somebody will offer him more than the mle

      Comment


      • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

        Who's this "Lance" guy people keep comparing Stuckey to?
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          I dunno. We're basically talking about giving Stuckey the money Lance would have gotten. I think if Lance had stayed, another year of maturity in a stable environment would have him playing much better than he is in Charlotte.

          Lance didn't hurt anybody but himself, but I don't think Larry was wrong to make that offer.
          While it would be a lot safer than the Lance deal, because he's not such a wacko, I really hope we don't offer Stuckey $44 million dollars over 5 years. He's been great these last couple months, but that would be a ridiculous overpay.

          Comment


          • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            While it would be a lot safer than the Lance deal, because he's not such a wacko, I really hope we don't offer Stuckey $44 million dollars over 5 years. He's been great these last couple months, but that would be a ridiculous overpay.
            Not much chance that the Pacers do that. I believe that they can only offer the MLE as they do not have Bird Rights to Rodney. That means they can offer, at most, 4yr/$24M next summer.

            Comment


            • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I dunno. We're basically talking about giving Stuckey the money Lance would have gotten. I think if Lance had stayed, another year of maturity in a stable environment would have him playing much better than he is in Charlotte.

              Lance didn't hurt anybody but himself, but I don't think Larry was wrong to make that offer.
              We can't give Stuckey a contract above the MLE without a major roster move or one of West/Hibbert electing to leave.
              Time for a new sig.

              Comment


              • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                You know, he'll definitely get a raise, but you've got to wonder if Lance will drive down his value.

                "There's this two guard with a bad reputation but in Indiana he was a good teammate, played within himself, and shot the three better than he ever has in his life. We think we'd like to bring him here and make him a starter."

                I love Stuckey and want him back, but I wouldn't be surprised if some GMs around the league look at his production this year and chalk it up to a healthy system instead of the player himself. If he's thriving in the system, you'd have to hesitate before throwing big money at him, because (like Lance) he might not thrive elsewhere the way he does here.
                I dont get the idea that GMs would look negatively at Rodney based on what Lance has done. They're two completely different players, with different skill sets, at different points in their careers.

                Stuckey is a vet who's played at or around this level for years. Lance had a single breakout season last year in his contract year.

                Maybe its just me, but i don't see the comparison

                Comment


                • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                  It's becoming increasingly clear that the 2 slot thrives within our offensive schema. It's also clear that our internal culture helps players become more successful. The difference between Lance and Rodney is that Rodney understands the notion of ubuntu and being the "product" of a system, and Lance does not / did not. Unfortunately, he's getting a massive lesson in that the hard way.

                  I'd be really happy with a three year MLE deal for Stuckey. It's clear that the admiration is mutual.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                    Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                    I'd be really happy with a three year MLE deal for Stuckey. It's clear that the admiration is mutual.
                    Agreed.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Only 64m committed, and that's with us paying Cope the 4mil that's not guaranteed.
                      Nope, you're reading it wrong. The 64M committed doesn't include Cope. The 64M is only for 8 players and doesn't include Cope or Shayne.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                        Just to be absolutely clear......assuming that nothing changes when it comes to the Pacers salary Cap....do we need to use the Full MLE to re-sign either Lavoy and/or Stuckey?

                        People keep on mentioning that we can offer him the Full MLE........but I thought that Strummer said that we don't have to because we have his Bird Rights?

                        I'm just trying to figure out if can use the Full MLE on some other Non-Pacer Free Agent and whether we can then re-sign EITHER Stuckey or Lavoy even if we use the Full MLE on some other Player while being over the Salary Cap.

                        Sorry, I am easily confused by all of this

                        I am truly confused.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          People keep on mentioning that we can offer him the Full MLE........but I thought that Strummer said that we don't have to because we have his Bird Rights?
                          We have Bird rights for Allen. We don't have Bird rights for Stuckey.

                          Maybe you should create a re-signability thread for current Pacers where you can keep this all straight.
                          Last edited by Strummer; 03-13-2015, 02:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                            Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                            We have Bird rights for Allen. We don't have Bird rights for Stuckey.

                            Maybe you should create a re-signability thread for current Pacers where you can keep this all straight.
                            Okay...so in order to re-sign Stuckey....we HAVE to use some or ( likely ) the Full MLE?

                            In regards to Lavoy.....I don't mind re-signing him.....it makes sense from a Salary Cap POV since we can go over the Salary Cap to re-sign him while filling up the roster. The question is if we will use him as the primary Backup PF or not. As I said...I'm torn on re-signing Scola or not....if he were 2 years younger......I'd be fine with re-signing him. He'll be 35 years old at the start of his next contract. Damn....I hate having a conundrum like this...but this seems like a "happy" conundrum to have when it comes to deciding what to do at the Backup PF spot.
                            Last edited by CableKC; 03-13-2015, 02:26 PM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                              http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/stuckey-i-want-stay

                              Stuckey: I Want to Stay

                              by Mark Montieth
                              Pacers.com Writer
                              @MarkMontieth
                              Posted: Mar 13, 2015


                              Rodney Stuckey believes somebody in Detroit was spreading dirt on him throughout the NBA. Telling people he's a bad teammate, has bad character and wouldn't fit with a winning team.

                              Pacers fans should track down that person and … thank him.

                              If he hadn't been forced to deal with that whispered defamation of character following his seven seasons in Detroit, Stuckey likely would have signed with another team over the summer – a team that could have offered to pay far more money than the reported veteran's minimum the Pacers could offer. But Stuckey had nothing but one-year offers to select from, so he chose the team he thought offered the best opportunity to rehabilitate his image, regardless of the money.
                              He's feeling he made the right choice.

                              Stuckey scored 25 points in the Pacers' 109-103 overtime victory over Milwaukee on Thursday, continuing a run of startling performances that coincides non-coincidentally with their seven-game winning streak. Over the last 11 games since Stuckey became a permanent backup, he's averaged 19.4 points while shooting better than 50 percent from the field. He's scored 30 or more three times, including a season-high 34 on Tuesday, and scored 15 after halftime to help lead the comeback against the Bucks.

                              Stuckey is a bench player in name only. He's led the Pacers in minutes played the last two games, and ranks third on the team in minutes per game. He played 36 minutes, 58 seconds against Milwaukee, including all of the fourth quarter and overtime. Call him a reserve if you like, but attach an asterisk to it.
                              Call him a minimum-salary player, too, but put an asterisk on that as well. Stuckey took a cut in pay to come to the Pacers to clear his name, and so far is doing a dramatic job of that.

                              “A lot of people were questioning my character,” he said. “'Oh, he's not a good teammate.' This and that. That and this. I'm a great guy. I'm very humble, I come to work each and every day, do my business.” But someone with the Pistons tried to sully his reputation, he said.

                              “It's just unfortunate,” he said. “I'm not going to say names, but I know who it was. It's just unfortunate for that person to throw me under the bus.”
                              Stuckey's recent play has fans wondering and worrying if the Pacers will be able to keep him beyond this season. He says not to worry.

                              “I want to be here,” he said. “When that time comes, we'll definitely figure something out.” Coach Frank Vogel is on board with that, saying before the game the plan all along has been to make Stuckey a more permanent fixture of the team.

                              We should pause a moment to inject a dollop of realism. Lance Stephenson said the same thing last season, and it didn't work out. It was Stephenson's departure that brought Stuckey and C.J. Miles to the Pacers, a one-for-two trade that so far looks awfully favorable. It's impossible to speculate what Stuckey will command as a free agent this summer, but he's obviously in for a big raise. Like all personnel matters, it will have to play itself out.

                              But Stuckey wants to stay. And he appears to have complete control over all decisions regarding his future.
                              “I love it here, man,” he said. “I'm staying in the city, close to everything. I love it here. My family loves it here. I love the people in this organization. Definitely, I want to come back. That's a no-brainer. Having a guy like Paul George here, of course I want to come play with an All-Star. Who doesn't? Definitely want to be back here.”

                              The way the Pacers are playing now, the way they're winning, nobody would want to leave. They're sharing the ball like no other Pacers team in a decade, and getting contributions from everyone. They're defending at a high rate, too. Milwaukee became the seventh consecutive opponent to fail to shoot 40 percent against them. It was hot early, hitting half of its first-quarter shots to take a 12-point lead, but hit just 2-of-11 in overtime.

                              The Pacers, meanwhile, hit 4-of-6 shots in the extra period, along with all four free throws. Their chemistry and balance was put on display those last five minutes like never before. C.J. Miles curled off a screen and hit a 3-pointer on an assist from George Hill to get it started. Luis Scola – who finished with 17 points and 15 rebounds and would have been featured more in this story if not for Stuckey's proclamation – scored the next field goal, a 16-footer from the left baseline, after a ball reversal and a bounce pass from David West. West, who had struggled through the first three quarters before finding his rhythm, added a 20-footer on an assist from Hill, then Stuckey hit a step-back 19-footer after a behind-the-back dribble in traffic. Free throws from Stuckey and Hill finished off the scoring.

                              The win moved the Pacers within 3 ½ games of Milwaukee for sixth place in the Eastern Conference. With 18 games to go, there's plenty of time to catch the Bucks, who have lost eight of their last 11. The players say they're not paying much attention to the standings, though. There's a large board in the hallway outside their locker room leading to the training room that is updated daily, and Vogel makes it a point to remind them, too. Beyond that, they don't seem to care.

                              “Right now the basketball we're playing is so free and so fun and trusting we don't need to put that type of pressure on it,” Miles said. “The biggest thing we have right now is you see everybody playing hard, and for each other and the smiles and the bench jumping up and down … understanding time and score but at the same time being able to play with confidence.”

                              Added Hill: “Every guy is trusting one another. Every guy has the mentality they're going to try to get a shot for the next guy.”

                              Sounds like basketball heaven. Stuckey's been through hell, and doesn't want to go back.

                              “The reason I came here is to make the playoffs, so that's the focus,” he said. “We've put ourselves in good position right now.”


                              Last edited by Hoop; 03-13-2015, 05:58 PM.
                              "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                                Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                                Nope, you're reading it wrong. The 64M committed doesn't include Cope. The 64M is only for 8 players and doesn't include Cope or Shayne.
                                Was ready to show you how wrong you are. Threw it in Excel and.... I'm wrong. Whoops.

                                So that's not nearly as rosy as I thought. Still, if you waive Cope you can still use that MLE without coming near the tax line.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X