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 agree to deal with Monta Ellis

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

  • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    When did he say he would take less? 8-9 million was what we offered Lance. It's my understanding the only deal we had out for Ellis before was 3/$32million.

    Also, the bucks didn't improve when Monta left. They went from 38 wins to an incredibly bad 15 wins the next season. That's -23 wins they gained by losing Ellis.
    And GS had a huge improvement due to the talent they added (Jarett Jack, Carl Landry, a healthy David Lee played in a lot more games, Harrison Barnes) and Thompson taking that 2nd year leap in production. There was also a coaching change, which can often lead to success due to a new voice in the locker room.

    It's not like they had the exact same team when Monta was there, and suddenly improved when he left. They had a much deeper and well put together roster after they traded him

    Edit: and the Bucks improved by 7 wins the season they added Monta
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 07-03-2015, 09:19 AM.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

      Originally posted by TOP View Post
      Wow, after hearing he was gonna sign for less at like 8-9 million a year, I'm surprised people are so happy about this deal. 11 million a year for this undersized midget? Okay... there is a reason the Warriors went on to win a championship after they got rid of him and the Bucks improved after they got rid of him. He's a massive liability at shooting guard. 4 million more and he's making what PG is making. Good job... good effort. Proof we're Indiana. We have to overpay undersized players to come here. I didn't want to trade George Hill before but might as well now. Monta Ellis is just a better scoring George Hill. Monta Ellis ain't a point guard but neither is George Hill. Basically, we have two insanely crappy versions of Curry and Thompson. Two shooting guards who barely qualify as shooting guards and are the size of point guards and all they can do is score. Nice. We'll be 8th seed in no time. And hey, we re-signed Lavoy Allen when we don't even have a power forward. Why? Not like we'll play him. This offseason is horrible and the Pacers so far are worse than last year. I defended the Myles Turner pick while people bashed it but now the pick is making more sense than ever. It's gonna be another 3 years before we're even better than a 5 seed. And even then, I'd leave I'm Paul George. This roster as is, garbage.
      Wow, this might be the most illogical post I have seen on this board. I have a few comments:

      GS won the title because they got rid of Ellis? Does this mean that Shaquille sucks? Let's see, since Shaquille left the team the Lakers have won two championships, the Heat have won two, and the Cavs have made it to the Finals. Man Shaquille must be overrated. This is really dumb.

      You might not know, but the cap is getting ready to go up. 11 million dollars is about 10% of what the cap will be in two years, thus it is equivalent to about a 6 million dollar deal. If you think that Ellis isn't an MLE guy, then I can't help you.

      Next, we are going to be worse than last year? We add Paul George and Monta Ellis while losing David West. That makes us worse? Really? REALLY??

      Finally you end the post claiming that you are Paul George. I hate to tell you, you are not Paul George.

      You are either certifiable or you are doing some pretty heavy morning drinking. Either way, this was pretty entertaining Paul George. Thank you for posting here Paul George. Good luck next season Paul George.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        If the initial offer of 3 years at $11 mil a year was correct, then this goes to show you why Small Market Teams have to overpay in order to attract Free Agents. It sounds like the 4th year was what sealed the deal for Monta to join the Pacers....the same reason why we had to give Miles a 4th year on his contract.
        I don't believe this is true.

        You don't have to offer more because you're a small market team. Just yesterday Greg Monroe signed with the Bucks, even though the Lakers and Knicks offered the same amount.

        We didn't up the offer because we're small market. We upped the offer because it was the difference between $32M and $48M guaranteed, from another small market team.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

          Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
          Wow, this might be the most illogical post I have seen on this board. I have a few comments:

          GS won the title because they got rid of Ellis? Does this mean that Shaquille sucks? Let's see, since Shaquille left the team the Lakers have won two championships, the Heat have won two, and the Cavs have made it to the Finals. Man Shaquille must be overrated. This is really dumb.

          You might not know, but the cap is getting ready to go up. 11 million dollars is about 10% of what the cap will be in two years, thus it is equivalent to about a 6 million dollar deal. If you think that Ellis isn't an MLE guy, then I can't help you.

          Next, we are going to be worse than last year? We add Paul George and Monta Ellis while losing David West. That makes us worse? Really? REALLY??

          Finally you end the post claiming that you are Paul George. I hate to tell you, you are not Paul George.

          You are either certifiable or you are doing some pretty heavy morning drinking. Either way, this was pretty entertaining Paul George. Thank you for posting here Paul George. Good luck next season Paul George.
          I'm pretty sure he just accidentally left out the word "if" at the end there.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
            You're missing my point. I'm not talking about 20 seconds. I've seen Hill jog the ball up where by the time he got to half court there were less than ten seconds to get into a set. Almost always results in a bad shot to end the quarter/half. Extra 3-4 seconds could make a big difference.
            That would be an 8-second violation. I feel that you're exaggerating a bit.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
              I want people to understand I was not just talking about GH in that post. Yes, he may have been more guilty than others, but part of that is he had the ball more often than others.

              Over the last three years or so we have just had too many possessions in which the offense didn't really get started until there were only 12-14 seconds left on the clock. Part of that has been how long it has taken for someone to get the ball over the mid court line. Gotta change that and give the offense a better chance.

              And, our guys are gonna have to learn to not stand around. Gotta move
              Some of that was by design though. We would often "shorten the game" due to our offensive personnel or lack thereof. We played a slow, plodding, inside out type of offense. That's been a staple of our offense back to when DC was our starter.

              I don't think that will be the case anymore however.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                I'm pretty sure he just accidentally left out the word "if" at the end there.
                I know, just having fun, lol

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Some of that was by design though. We would often "shorten the game" due to our offensive personnel or lack thereof. We played a slow, plodding, inside out type of offense. That's been a staple of our offense back to when DC was our starter...
                  I've thought about that often. Was it by design? In the same offense we had a one-man fast break with Lance, some players in our second unit pushed the tempo, but George Hill has always been slow in transition.

                  I don't see why George couldn't be great in transition...he should be. But we've always had other guys who push the tempo while Hill was on the team, but Hill hasn't.

                  It almost seems to be more of a preference than an instruction for Hill to bring it up slowly. Even worse is the 5-8 seconds of dribbling on the arc until the clock is in single digits.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    I've thought about that often. Was it by design? In the same offense we had a one-man fast break with Lance, some players in our second unit pushed the tempo, but George Hill has always been slow in transition.

                    I don't see why George couldn't be great in transition...he should be. But we've always had other guys who push the tempo while Hill was on the team, but Hill hasn't.

                    It almost seems to be more of a preference than an instruction for Hill to bring it up slowly. Even worse is the 5-8 seconds of dribbling on the arc until the clock is in single digits.
                    Well you kind of said it yourself, Lance would often be a one man fast break. I can't think of many times DC, Augustin, Watson, etc pushed the ball on any type of consistent basis. I actually think Hill is good in transition when he pushes it (saw more of that this past year, and also in SA) but he's been inconsistent with it.

                    A guy like Gerald Green was mostly ineffective here. A lot of that had to do with minimal transition opportunities, and I'm sure he shared most of his time with Augustin. Evan Turner is another example that would have played better with more of an emphasis on transition.

                    Running the break is a lot like defense, there has to be a total commitment to it. We have lacked that from Hill; but outside of Lance, we've also lacked it from our other ball handlers as well.

                    As far as the over dribbling is concerned, I think Hill waits too long to let a play develop. He's trying too hard to run the play as opposed to reading and reacting. Sometimes you have to saw forget the play, and make something happen. Obviously you don't want to regularly do so (again see Lance) but it definitely needs to be an option

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      If the initial offer of 3 years at $11 mil a year was correct, then this goes to show you why Small Market Teams have to overpay in order to attract Free Agents. It sounds like the 4th year was what sealed the deal for Monta to join the Pacers....the same reason why we had to give Miles a 4th year on his contract.
                      Speaking of Miles, does anyone think he is underpaid now?
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                        Originally posted by owl View Post
                        Speaking of Miles, does anyone think he is underpaid now?
                        I would say he is fairly paid, which is a heck of a lot different than what I thought at this time last year.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          I've thought about that often. Was it by design? In the same offense we had a one-man fast break with Lance, some players in our second unit pushed the tempo, but George Hill has always been slow in transition.

                          I don't see why George couldn't be great in transition...he should be. But we've always had other guys who push the tempo while Hill was on the team, but Hill hasn't.

                          It almost seems to be more of a preference than an instruction for Hill to bring it up slowly. Even worse is the 5-8 seconds of dribbling on the arc until the clock is in single digits.
                          http://8points9seconds.com/2014/08/1...rs-fast-break/

                          George Hill basically scored on fast breaks at the same pace as Lance and Paul the last season they were all here. He did score less total than the other two, but it wasn't some huge difference.

                          George just doesn't release off his man as quickly I think. But he runs.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                            The only thing good about this signing is the size of the contract. It is a bargain by the standards of this free agency. But Monta Ellis is the kind of player that is wrong with the game of basketball. A ball hog who just puts his head down and drives to the basket, no ball movement. I don't like that part of it but I can't say no to 17-18 points a night and the quickness factor.

                            He also has bad/ugly form for a jump shot.
                            ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              Middleton was a RFA, there was no realistic way we could have gotten him.
                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              He also got 14 mil per
                              Forgot he was a RFA, also saw somewhere it was 12.2, maybe they were talking about next year. May be a backloaded contract.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                                Originally posted by TOP View Post
                                Wow, after hearing he was gonna sign for less at like 8-9 million a year, I'm surprised people are so happy about this deal. 11 million a year for this undersized midget? Okay... there is a reason the Warriors went on to win a championship after they got rid of him and the Bucks improved after they got rid of him. He's a massive liability at shooting guard. 4 million more and he's making what PG is making. Good job... good effort. Proof we're Indiana. We have to overpay undersized players to come here. I didn't want to trade George Hill before but might as well now. Monta Ellis is just a better scoring George Hill. Monta Ellis ain't a point guard but neither is George Hill. Basically, we have two insanely crappy versions of Curry and Thompson. Two shooting guards who barely qualify as shooting guards and are the size of point guards and all they can do is score. Nice. We'll be 8th seed in no time. And hey, we re-signed Lavoy Allen when we don't even have a power forward. Why? Not like we'll play him. This offseason is horrible and the Pacers so far are worse than last year. I defended the Myles Turner pick while people bashed it but now the pick is making more sense than ever. It's gonna be another 3 years before we're even better than a 5 seed. And even then, I'd leave I'm Paul George. This roster as is, garbage.
                                If you were PG you'd leave? Well, I don't know PG personally but he seemed pretty damn happy about us getting Ellis.... In-fact I would be really damn happy if I were PG because this signing means he doesn't have to do everything or score 25 ppg for us to be good. Ellis takes a huge load off of PG's back while disabling the defense from focusing on him the whole time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X