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 nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

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

  • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

    Originally posted by PaulGeorge View Post
    I just wanna know how Noah who was hurt last year like Al and is also 31 was able to command $72mil over 4 years. I know his defense and offensive rebounding is better but they way overpaid. Jeffersons contract will look amazing if he can be a solid contributor for these 3 years.
    You know not all injuries are the same right....

    Noah had a bum shoulder. Jefferson has bum knees. Bad knees scare GMs more than anything.
    Last edited by Kstat; 07-02-2016, 08:14 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      You know not all injuries are the same right....

      Noah had a bum shoulder. Jefferson has bum knees. Bad knees scare GMs more than anything.
      I may have to look more into his injury history but all I've read about was a meniscus issue. Meniscus surgery is not a big deal, I don't equate that to bad knees.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

        Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
        Pacers digest seems less thrilled about this move than the general public. Most people are calling this the best free agent signing so far.
        This is what makes me love the move even more & lets me know this move will work out for the best. Don't you know the more PD hates a move the better off we are? The more they love a move the worst off we are. As I've said, if we lose Shayne Whittington this site would riot. If we picked up LeBron they would ***** about the money.

        PS: I love this move. PD however would rather have Mosgov for 4 years $65 million, apparently. $10 million was the max I was willing to see spent on a backup center. If Ian took $10, great, but he was way over so hard pass. Larry knows better. I didn't expect a player like Al Jefferson to be had at just $10 million.

        Larry is "not done" & is "all in." - horses mouth.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

          Forbes Grades to date. Not as positive on Jefferson as some of the comments I've read on ESPN.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbenj.../#70235e2647af

          Al Jefferson: 3 years, $30 million from Indiana Pacers
          Adrian Wojnarowski of The Vertical reported this deal, one that could probably be underrated compared to the rest of the action today. Jefferson provides the big veteran body that the Pacers need at center, but is also 31 and has steadily declined the past couple of years. He was limited to 47 games last season and started only 18, and Indiana also has free agents Jordan Hill and Ian Mahinmi to consider for the future. Even if Jefferson is a second-unit player, he does not have a lot of gas left in the tank and $30 million is a lot to give a player like him. It could turn out to be a fine value signing if he stays healthy, especially after earning $13.5 million a year in three years with Charlotte, but the odds are not in his favor. Grade: C

          Solomon Hill: 4 years, $48 million from New Orleans Pelicans
          Hill is a former first-round pick out of Arizona, but averaged just six points and 3.1 rebounds per game in three years with the Pacers. Thus, just what New Orleans was thinking in giving him this contract boggles the mind. Small forward is a weak spot for the Pelicans, yes, and Hill averages 10.6 points and 5.4 boards every 36 minutes of play, but that doesn’t take away from how much he was overpaid. Even with the rising cap, this looks like a deal that New Orleans will come to regret down the road. Grade: D-

          Evan Turner: 4 years, $70 million from Portland Trail Blazers
          Moving back to some more positive signings, Portland landed an underrated target in Turner. The former second overall pick only posted 10.5 points per game in a bench role for the Boston Celtics last season, but is versatile on the court and a fine athlete. He should give the Blazers some extra scoring behind C.J. McCollum and Damian Lillard and will start at small forward according to Mark Murphy of The Boston Herald. $70 million is a lot of money for someone who has never been an elite scorer or defender, but Portland’s investment will pay off simply from Turner’s strong work ethic. Losing the Chandler Parsons sweepstakes stings, but Turner is a fine consolation prize. Grade: B+
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
            Forbes Grades to date. Not as positive on Jefferson as some of the comments I've read on ESPN.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbenj.../#70235e2647af

            Al Jefferson: 3 years, $30 million from Indiana Pacers
            Adrian Wojnarowski of The Vertical reported this deal, one that could probably be underrated compared to the rest of the action today. Jefferson provides the big veteran body that the Pacers need at center, but is also 31 and has steadily declined the past couple of years. He was limited to 47 games last season and started only 18, and Indiana also has free agents Jordan Hill and Ian Mahinmi to consider for the future. Even if Jefferson is a second-unit player, he does not have a lot of gas left in the tank and $30 million is a lot to give a player like him. It could turn out to be a fine value signing if he stays healthy, especially after earning $13.5 million a year in three years with Charlotte, but the odds are not in his favor. Grade: C

            Solomon Hill: 4 years, $48 million from New Orleans Pelicans
            Hill is a former first-round pick out of Arizona, but averaged just six points and 3.1 rebounds per game in three years with the Pacers. Thus, just what New Orleans was thinking in giving him this contract boggles the mind. Small forward is a weak spot for the Pelicans, yes, and Hill averages 10.6 points and 5.4 boards every 36 minutes of play, but that doesn’t take away from how much he was overpaid. Even with the rising cap, this looks like a deal that New Orleans will come to regret down the road. Grade: D-

            Evan Turner: 4 years, $70 million from Portland Trail Blazers
            Moving back to some more positive signings, Portland landed an underrated target in Turner. The former second overall pick only posted 10.5 points per game in a bench role for the Boston Celtics last season, but is versatile on the court and a fine athlete. He should give the Blazers some extra scoring behind C.J. McCollum and Damian Lillard and will start at small forward according to Mark Murphy of The Boston Herald. $70 million is a lot of money for someone who has never been an elite scorer or defender, but Portland’s investment will pay off simply from Turner’s strong work ethic. Losing the Chandler Parsons sweepstakes stings, but Turner is a fine consolation prize. Grade: B+
            I don't think the write understands the increase of cap and how each contract has to be 30-40% higher than the previous year.

            But I do agree with the Solomon Hill assessment.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              You know not all injuries are the same right....

              Noah had a bum shoulder. Jefferson has bum knees. Bad knees scare GMs more than anything.
              But it's a reoccurring injury. Once shoulders start popping out, they have a tendency to continue popping out. Considering Noah's role, he'll be putting stress on that shoulder daily, with no way of "monitoring" potential issues. If it decides to go again, it'll just go. We can help monitor the knees through reduced playing time.
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                This is what makes me love the move even more & lets me know this move will work out for the best. Don't you know the more PD hates a move the better off we are? The more they love a move the worst off we are. As I've said, if we lose Shayne Whittington this site would riot. If we picked up LeBron they would ***** about the money.

                PS: I love this move. PD however would rather have Mosgov for 4 years $65 million, apparently. $10 million was the max I was willing to see spent on a backup center. If Ian took $10, great, but he was way over so hard pass. Larry knows better. I didn't expect a player like Al Jefferson to be had at just $10 million.

                Larry is "not done" & is "all in." - horses mouth.
                Love this move too. The other part of this that hasn't been brought up is Al is supposed to be a real gentleman, stand-up character guy, and great in the locker room. combined with his skill set and the contract size, this is a steal.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                  Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                  Doubt it, but we'll see. I mean, the IR started out trying to be a post of appreciation for a player whose contributions often went unnoticed. If Thad Young came off the bench, he'd be a good candidate. Time will tell. It's not like I'm going to stop watching this damn team lol.
                  Appreciated. I just asked because I liked the IR
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                    Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                    This is what makes me love the move even more & lets me know this move will work out for the best. Don't you know the more PD hates a move the better off we are?
                    Nice try but the majority of the site likes/loves the move.
                    Last edited by Nuntius; 07-02-2016, 12:57 PM.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                      Forbes Grades to date. Not as positive on Jefferson as some of the comments I've read on ESPN.

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbenj.../#70235e2647af

                      Al Jefferson: 3 years, $30 million from Indiana Pacers
                      Adrian Wojnarowski of The Vertical reported this deal, one that could probably be underrated compared to the rest of the action today. Jefferson provides the big veteran body that the Pacers need at center, but is also 31 and has steadily declined the past couple of years. He was limited to 47 games last season and started only 18, and Indiana also has free agents Jordan Hill and Ian Mahinmi to consider for the future. Even if Jefferson is a second-unit player, he does not have a lot of gas left in the tank and $30 million is a lot to give a player like him. It could turn out to be a fine value signing if he stays healthy, especially after earning $13.5 million a year in three years with Charlotte, but the odds are not in his favor. Grade: C

                      Solomon Hill: 4 years, $48 million from New Orleans Pelicans
                      Hill is a former first-round pick out of Arizona, but averaged just six points and 3.1 rebounds per game in three years with the Pacers. Thus, just what New Orleans was thinking in giving him this contract boggles the mind. Small forward is a weak spot for the Pelicans, yes, and Hill averages 10.6 points and 5.4 boards every 36 minutes of play, but that doesn’t take away from how much he was overpaid. Even with the rising cap, this looks like a deal that New Orleans will come to regret down the road. Grade: D-

                      Evan Turner: 4 years, $70 million from Portland Trail Blazers
                      Moving back to some more positive signings, Portland landed an underrated target in Turner. The former second overall pick only posted 10.5 points per game in a bench role for the Boston Celtics last season, but is versatile on the court and a fine athlete. He should give the Blazers some extra scoring behind C.J. McCollum and Damian Lillard and will start at small forward according to Mark Murphy of The Boston Herald. $70 million is a lot of money for someone who has never been an elite scorer or defender, but Portland’s investment will pay off simply from Turner’s strong work ethic. Losing the Chandler Parsons sweepstakes stings, but Turner is a fine consolation prize. Grade: B+
                      Why do people go to Forbes for sports opinions.

                      Heck, I don't even use them for financial opinions.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        Nice try but the majority of the site likes/loves the move.
                        I think it's a solid pickup for those times we need a big body or when the backups need a lift on offense. I find it a surprising pickup due to him being such a plodding player given Larry constantly saying he wanted to play fast. ...but he did say he wanted to score more points.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                          Even if Jefferson is a rich man's Mo Speights: Comes in and lights it up off the bench, he'll be more than worth it in this market.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                            Jon Leuer just got a 4/42 contract. Yeah, in this environment, it is a steal to get Al Jefferson on 3/30. I am completely dumbfounded by what is happening this weekend.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              Some posters have mentioned that Al Jeff would be a great teacher for Turner, but it just occurred to me that the young player on our roster most similar to Al Jeff is actually the rookie, Georges Niang. Take it for what it's worth.

                              And yes, please more (insert underappreciated player) reports. I know it's a labor of love, but it's a lot of fun for us who appreciate the unflashy players.
                              I don't think Niang and Jefferson are anything alike. To me, that's like comparing Austin Croshere to Jermaine O'Neal.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers nearing deal with C Al Jefferson

                                Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                                Doubt it, but we'll see. I mean, the IR started out trying to be a post of appreciation for a player whose contributions often went unnoticed. If Thad Young came off the bench, he'd be a good candidate. Time will tell. It's not like I'm going to stop watching this damn team lol.
                                RIP Ian Report. I would go to most post game threads just to read it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X