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 Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

    Originally posted by I Love P View Post
    Last season:

    Ian Mahinmi played 71 games @ 25 minutes per game and tallied 75 blocks to go along with 369 defensive rebounds.

    Myles Turner played in 60 games @ 22 minutes per game and swatted 86 shots while grabbing 264 defensive rebounds.

    The paint is protected with Myles down low. The perimeter is protected with PG on the opponents best offensive player with Teague and Monta getting in the passing lanes.

    Defense will be fine. This team is going to be good.
    The difference is that last year we had both of them. When Roy Hibbert was here, we had a capable backup defender in Mahinmi. Same goes for Turner backing up - and later playing alongside - Ian. I'm not saying the defense is guaranteed to suffer, but somebody will have to step up and assume that secondary role to Turner as the primary rim protector. We were fortunate that Myles Turner was ready to contribute at a high level - especially for a rookie - last year, and also that Ian stepped up to the challenge of being a full-time starter. There is reason to lack confidence in the strength of our frontcourt defensively.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      Hmm, that doesn't seem right. But maybe I'm missing something.

      EDIT: Oh, I was missing something. PG has only played 6 seasons in the league, meaning he's only eligible for 25% max instead of the 30% max that Westbrook and Harden extended for. At least, that would account for Steve Kyler's numbers.
      Last edited by wintermute; 09-02-2016, 10:38 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

        Originally posted by LG33 View Post
        The difference is that last year we had both of them. When Roy Hibbert was here, we had a capable backup defender in Mahinmi. Same goes for Turner backing up - and later playing alongside - Ian. I'm not saying the defense is guaranteed to suffer, but somebody will have to step up and assume that secondary role to Turner as the primary rim protector. We were fortunate that Myles Turner was ready to contribute at a high level - especially for a rookie - last year, and also that Ian stepped up to the challenge of being a full-time starter. There is reason to lack confidence in the strength of our frontcourt defensively.
        Eh, we really didn't have both of them the way you're describing, at least they weren't used that way. They played most of their minutes together and Turner only played 61 games. Turner spent very little time as the only center on the court. Even when paired with JHill, Turner played PF.

        As it stands we have way more depth with our bigs than last year.
        Last edited by freddielewis14; 09-02-2016, 10:36 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

          Here's Seraphin playing defense in the post last year on Howard...



          And his offensive skill set screams defensive/bigger JHill...



          This is clearly an in case of injury move IMO. Al goes down you have a guy who can make shots and defend a little. Or if we just want to play someone more defensive minded than Al with the bench unit at times, we have an option.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            Sample size but...

            Seraphin contested 9.8 shots at the rim (per 36) last year, allowing 42% FG to opponents.
            Ian Mahinmi allowed 9.1 per 36, allowing 49%.
            — Miller Time Podcast (@MillerTimePod) September 2, 2016

            neat. although Seraphin played 48 games and 11 minutes a night against backups and Ian did it in 72 and 26mpg against starters. apples and tomatoes.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              neat. although Seraphin played 48 games and 11 minutes a night against backups and Ian did it in 72 and 26mpg against starters. apples and tomatoes.
              I thought that was noted in sample size.

              Also, Seraphin will continue to play against backups, so...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Hmm, that doesn't seem right. But maybe I'm missing something.

                EDIT: Oh, I was missing something. PG has only played 6 seasons in the league, meaning he's only eligible for 25% max instead of the 30% max that Westbrook and Harden extended for. At least, that would account for Steve Kyler's numbers.
                But of course we know that PG was eligible for the Rose rule initially. He was eligible for 30% of the cap and settled on 27 I think. I have no clue how the Rose Rule interacts with extensions (I don't think there's a single test case), but I can't believe he would be amenable to going down to 25% on an extension when he can get 30% with an extension next year.

                So if this is right, I would be very surprised if he would be willing to sign an extension quite yet. Even if he wants one, it seems to be smart financially to wait a year, then sign a 2 year extension, then come out in free agency when he's hit the 10 year mark. Of course, if he can get 30% right now, he could extend for the same two seasons this fall, but then that goes back to your point of the Pacers not having the cap room anymore.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  But of course we know that PG was eligible for the Rose rule initially. He was eligible for 30% of the cap and settled on 27 I think. I have no clue how the Rose Rule interacts with extensions (I don't think there's a single test case), but I can't believe he would be amenable to going down to 25% on an extension when he can get 30% with an extension next year.
                  The language of the Designated Player rule only seems to cover 5th year rookie extensions, but I suspect that you're right and that PG's particular situation was not anticipated.

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  So if this is right, I would be very surprised if he would be willing to sign an extension quite yet. Even if he wants one, it seems to be smart financially to wait a year, then sign a 2 year extension, then come out in free agency when he's hit the 10 year mark. Of course, if he can get 30% right now, he could extend for the same two seasons this fall, but then that goes back to your point of the Pacers not having the cap room anymore.
                  What could work from the Pacers' perspective is a (small) raise now to the 25% max, followed by another raise next year (to the 30% max, plus next year's cap is higher anyway). Doing it in 2 steps would mean smaller cap usage for the Pacers next season. In return, they might ask PG to extend for one season now, followed by another one-season extension when the higher raise hits next year. Or maybe they only get a verbal commitment from PG now, but the Pacers give him an immediate raise anyway out of goodwill (plus wink-wink agreement for next year). I'd like to think that there's a high degree of trust between PG and the Pacers, so some kind of unusual arrangement may be possible.
                  Last edited by wintermute; 09-02-2016, 12:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    The language of the Designated Player rule only seems to cover 5th year rookie extensions, but I suspect that you're right and that PG's particular situation was not anticipated.



                    What could work from the Pacers' perspective is a (small) raise now to the 25% max, followed by another raise next year (to the 30% max, plus next year's cap is higher anyway). Doing it in 2 steps would mean smaller cap usage for the Pacers next season. In return, they might ask PG to extend for one season now, followed by another one-season extension when the higher raise hits next year. Or maybe they only get a verbal commitment from PG now, but the Pacers give him an immediate raise anyway out of goodwill (plus wink-wink agreement for next year). I'd like to think that there's a high degree of trust between PG and the Pacers, so some kind of unusual arrangement may be possible.
                    It looks like you can only sign another extension three years after the original extension was signed (same time period as an original long-term contract) so I don't think extending him now and then extending him again next year is legal under the rules.

                    There is a provision to give him a raise, but if that raise is more than 10% and they don't extend him now then they won't be able to extend him for three years (which of course means he would become a free agent first). So they would be able to give him a small raise of around 1.8 million and still be able to do an extension next year. To tie it back to this thread, that would still be possible even after this Seraphin contract.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                      Interesting. Kevin Seraphin is a good player and his contract seems to be good value. I'm pleased. We still really need a SG, though.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                        Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                        Cutting Joe Young? What? Cutting Rakeem Christmas? Not happening. Xmas was projected as a late 1st round pick 2 drafts ago. The Pacers traded a future 2nd round pick (one they received from LA for Roy) and took him at pick 36 overall. #6 overall in the 2nd round. No way they're giving up on that after just 1 season. Not to mention he's on a cheap @ss deal for the next 3 seasons at just $1 million per...including a team option in the final year. Joe and Rakeem aren't going anywhere. Shouldn't even be discussed. Joe Young might end up being the backup pg for this team.

                        Lavoy is gone or maybe Jeremy Evans? GRIII certainly isn't going anywhere. He's really the only young project G/F we have on this team. Although I don't see why they'd drop Jeremy after Larry said he couldn't wait to inundate him into the teams strength and conditioning program earlier this Summer.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                          In before Grimp claims he is a three point shooter.
                          I've studied Kevin enough to know he's isn't a 3pt shooter. The guy doesn't even dabble in taking any lol. I really feel he is replacing Lavoy though.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                            I've always liked seraphin.l think he could come in and earn a spot in the rotation(back up pf).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              Lavoy is gone or maybe Jeremy Evans? GRIII certainly isn't going anywhere. He's really the only young project G/F we have on this team. Although I don't see why they'd drop Jeremy after Larry said he couldn't wait to inundate him into the teams strength and conditioning program earlier this Summer.
                              It's likely Evans. It's easier to trade/dump a $1.3 mil expiring as opposed to a $3.5 mil expiring. The only way that Lavoy is moved is if he is included in a Trade to make the Salaries work.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers Sign Kevin Seraphin to a Two-Year Deal

                                Yeah I feel like LaVoy is the guy that'll be gone soon. Think Pacers will try and dump him for any future value and if they can't then Evans will be gone.
                                "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                                ----------------- Reggie Miller

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X