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

West declines his player option

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

  • Re: West declines his player option

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    Nah, he didn't do much in the series vs. Atlanta. Monroe I think fits better. My first choice would be Milsap but he looked very slow and hobbled vs. the Cavs in the playoffs. That was a time where he should've put that team on his back with all the injuries but he didn't.
    Isn't it a little short sighted to judge players solely based off one playoff series?

    Comment


    • Re: West declines his player option

      Ed Davis is a free agent...
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • Re: West declines his player option

        Coupe of thoughts...
        statistically West and Scola were pretty much even in terms of contribution last year, but those of you who are saying start Scola....well that is a scary thought, Scola does not have the ability to put a team on his back in the 4th quarter. He isn't known as "old reliable" sure Scola moves well and is a savy vet, but he isn't making defensive stops when it counts, David West with all his limitations could still play defense when it mattered in crunch time. I really do not want to see Scola as our starting PF next season, infact i'm even leery of giving Scola a bigger contract than the 2.5 million he made last year from us. I know he produces, but he just isn't a crunch time player like David West is.

        Paul Milsap would be a perfect fit here. He has the bulk to play the 4 position for most of the season, his game stretches out to the 3pt line, and he rebounds, and on nights where we need more length at the 4 spot, you can switch the match up for him and PG13. I mean that is really a match made in heaven. I'm sure Milsap is leaning toward staying with the Hawks, but damn.... Bird needs step up his game get Milsap in the Blue and Gold!

        Thaddeus Young would be a good consolation prize, he has good athleticism and length for an undersized PF. But he isn't a gamer at all. You can't count on him night to night like you could with Milsap.

        WCS is the pick now. He will run the court and finish with dunks, and he can develop into a great Pick n Roll player on offense. While still making the defense elite in the middle.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: West declines his player option

          WCS? Only if our guys sign off on his foot. I still would rather have Frank


          "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
          "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

          Comment


          • Re: West declines his player option

            It's sad the David West in Indy era is over, but I was of the opinion he was on the decline, and I felt this season was set to be one of basically spinning our wheels waiting in a retool/rebuild a season later, so in a way this is a relief. I'll always appreciate what he did for the Pacers, though. I'll root for him wherever he ends up.

            I'm just curious to see how the Pacers handle this scenario over the next month or so; should be fascinating. Not sure which direction they'll go in. If I read correctly, we should essentially end up with about $10m in usable cap space because of this if Roy stays, though we lose the MLE and LLE (something like 5.5m per and 2.0 per, more or less), though we'd gain some other new exception from the new CBA that I think is for something like 2.6m per?

            Very interesting.

            Comment


            • Re: West declines his player option

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              Actually, he used to start poorly and finish well. He's streaky (offensively more than defensively), but not predictably streaky.
              Believe it or not, Hibbert usually starts off well, then trails off in late Nov/early Dec, struggles for a long time, then rounds back into good play at the end of the season. The three exceptions have been the year of the hand/wrist injury, Feb '14 onward, and not rounding back into good play this most recent season.

              Graphically (which I've done in the past), it's crazy how similar his season arcs are. Like Rogco says, I think his good starts have to do with the great shape/work he's put in over the summer, but since he can't sustain the training during the regular season it wears off, and by late November it's gone.

              Comment


              • Re: West declines his player option

                Hibbert needs his minutes limited (Vogel actually did a pretty good job of this last year) and those Spurs-like days off. Also, probably a fresh start because our fanbase has turned on him.

                Comment


                • Re: West declines his player option

                  Hopefully the front office isn't as reactionary as the board and don't change draft plans because an old guy opted out.

                  Comment


                  • Re: West declines his player option

                    While I will miss DWest and wish him well, there is no relevance to him declining the option in terms of chaniging anything for the draft. This team isn't competing for anything meaningful regardless. That isn't going to happen until this team rebuilds. Good luck finding a contender DWest...

                    Comment


                    • Re: West declines his player option

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Coupe of thoughts...
                      statistically West and Scola were pretty much even in terms of contribution last year
                      I decided to look to see if this was true. The short of it is no it is not true. Per minute and per possession Louis out scored and out rebounded West. Louis had a better Ortg and Drtg by 1 in each. Scola's win share per 48 was .126 compared to .108 for West. There shooting efficiency was virtually identical. Except for one difference Scola was scoring from both inside and outside, while West scored almost exclusively from outside. I believe this is the difference people saw that made them more impressed with how Scola played, and why he was the better player last year. He was scoring from a variety of positions instead of just camping out between the elbow and the three point line. This makes him more difficult to guard, and more of an offensive threat.

                      As far as defense goes I think you give West too much credit and Scola not enough.

                      Now if Scola is brought back I have no problem with him starting, but if that is the case I would rather see us treat it more like a McBob/Hans situation where we bring in another equally good talent and play PF by committee.

                      Comment


                      • Re: West declines his player option

                        I suppose Scola can start. It's going to be another long year if that happens.

                        Comment


                        • Re: West declines his player option

                          It was said earlier, but this news should have no effect on the draft. As a small market team, taking the BPA is not affected by other moves.

                          Comment


                          • Re: West declines his player option

                            If we actually want to pick up the pace, there's no way Scola will be back. I don't see why we need to re-sign Luis Scola. It's time to move on to younger options.

                            Comment


                            • Re: West declines his player option

                              Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                              If we actually want to pick up the pace, there's no way Scola will be back. I don't see why we need to re-sign Luis Scola. It's time to move on to younger options.
                              Exactly. This franchise is at a bit of a crossroads right now. There is absolutely zero need for us to willingly be spending money on a 35 year old at this point. Time to focus on future pieces who will be here as PG enters the prime of his career.

                              Comment


                              • Re: West declines his player option

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Exactly. This franchise is at a bit of a crossroads right now. There is absolutely zero need for us to willingly be spending money on a 35 year old at this point. Time to focus on future pieces who will be here as PG enters the prime of his career.
                                Scola would be cheap. He's still an effective NBA player. If the money we spend on Scola could be used to get someone better who is younger, then by all means go for the younger, better option. But there's nothing wrong with Scola coming back on a cheap 1-2 year deal to be used as a stopgap player/veteran presence. We could do a lot worse.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X