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

Indystar Quotes re: Simon Spending Money

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

  • Indystar Quotes re: Simon Spending Money

    https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...on/3617860002/ by J. Michael

    ...owner Herb Simon has given his front office the green light to go into the luxury tax if necessary to build a winner...
    "Herb wants to win. Herb has never told me no if it makes the team better," Pritchard said.
    Yes, I know, this is all lies and vile calumnies as proven by some random dude making a random tweet which is more credible, but this way I can search PD and find the article should I need it later.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

  • #2
    This is probably the most recent evidence to the contrary. This is Jackie MacMullan on Zach Lowe's podcast back in February. They are talking about the Pacers maybe trading for Mike Conley at the deadline and they get into the Simons and their reluctance to spend in the recent past. The key section is from the 37:30 mark to about the 38:30 mark.

    http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=25835114

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
      This is probably the most recent evidence to the contrary. This is Jackie MacMullan on Zach Lowe's podcast back in February. They are talking about the Pacers maybe trading for Mike Conley at the deadline and they get into the Simons and their reluctance to spend in the recent past. The key section is from the 37:30 mark to about the 38:30 mark.

      http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=25835114
      Yep I remember listening to Jackie and her explanation as to why Bird left and Simmons refusal to spend money.

      Thanks for posting the podcast because I didnít feel like doing the work
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #4
        Spin all you want but the proof is in the pudding.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
          This is probably the most recent evidence to the contrary. This is Jackie MacMullan on Zach Lowe's podcast back in February. They are talking about the Pacers maybe trading for Mike Conley at the deadline and they get into the Simons and their reluctance to spend in the recent past. The key section is from the 37:30 mark to about the 38:30 mark.

          http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=25835114
          Thanks for posting this. I never heard this before and it was interesting hearing that one of the reasons Bird left was because of the simons not wanting to spend money. I do remember Bird always saying that he had a budget and he had to work within that. Is simon just not willing to spend money on a big free agent, or is it the luxury tax that he is avoiding. If it is the luxury tax then I can't blame Simon. Out of all 29 teams it looks like only 5 are paying the tax this year. If you aren't competiting for a championship there is no reason to pay the tax. If somehow the pacers land a big name free agent in the offseason. I don't think this team should go into the tax trying to re-sing thad or DC. Just let them walk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post

            Thanks for posting this. I never heard this before and it was interesting hearing that one of the reasons Bird left was because of the simons not wanting to spend money. I do remember Bird always saying that he had a budget and he had to work within that. Is simon just not willing to spend money on a big free agent, or is it the luxury tax that he is avoiding. If it is the luxury tax then I can't blame Simon. Out of all 29 teams it looks like only 5 are paying the tax this year. If you aren't competiting for a championship there is no reason to pay the tax. If somehow the pacers land a big name free agent in the offseason. I don't think this team should go into the tax trying to re-sing thad or DC. Just let them walk
            I think he just wants to stay out of the luxury tax, however, in the right situation he will go into it. As I recall, he signed Jermaine O'Neal to the largest contract in the league (at that time) and I am thinking we did go into the luxury tax for a year or two.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post

              Thanks for posting this. I never heard this before and it was interesting hearing that one of the reasons Bird left was because of the simons not wanting to spend money. I do remember Bird always saying that he had a budget and he had to work within that. Is simon just not willing to spend money on a big free agent, or is it the luxury tax that he is avoiding.
              Personally, I think it's both to one degree or another.

              He's not interested in pursuing RFA's and I think the why's of that probably explain the reluctance to go after FA's in general. My opinion is, since Simon is not really in this for a championship (IMO), he'd rather not inflate the FA market by bidding on other team's players, or players other teams are after. Except his own. And even there, it's probably a little bit of hoping other teams will respect that and not play hard ball too badly when the Pacers are actively trying to re-sign one of their own.
              But when it comes to FA's on the market, if the Pacers don't seriously bid on a big name, then they don't drive the market up for that player. They don't become a potential destination, or leverage. So it's a favor to the other teams and the league and not being one of the teams driving up the market for players moving around the league via free agency.

              And if they leave RFA's alone, they in theory help that player's team to re-sign him by not adding to a potential market.

              And it helps the Pacers who'd rather just build via internal growth anyway. And when the playoffs are the goal and not a championship, then you don't need to play in the FA pool except at the fringes hoping to get lucky and just maintain your playoff appearance possibilities.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                There is also the obvious PR bs in those comments, "IF necessary to build a winner", "IF it makes the team better", we all can read what they are trying to say here is not that complicated.

                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...on/3617860002/ by J. Michael





                  Yes, I know, this is all lies and vile calumnies as proven by some random dude making a random tweet which is more credible, but this way I can search PD and find the article should I need it later.
                  I dont think its a lie at all, I always thought Simon would spend, but not foolishly

                  I cant recall a time it was leaked that we had a chance top get a superstar, but Simon didnt want to exceed the luxury tax
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not hard to understand, guys... The owner is willing to spend but wants to do it intelligently. That's why he's in the position of owner and you're complaining from your armchair. The other problem is that high value free agents need to want to come here. And, if he were to spend too much on talent we already have, you'd have a conniption. But it gives the constant whiners something to post about, so go ahead and enjoy... Looking forward to more posts about how we should trade a potential defensive player of the year later. lol

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's just talk. I'll bet Bills his season tickets they dont actually go into the tax next year.

                      They have a recipe that doesnt require it. Pay top dollar for a single superstar, in this case its Oladipo, surround him with modestly priced, solid role players, because they know that's good enough for the playoffs.

                      Adding another high priced player would cause them to sacrifice key members of the supporting cast, in order to avoid the tax, which would then result in "not improving the team".

                      Its all a bunch of double talk. I could post 3 articles from IBJ with Herb specifically saying he wont go into the tax.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        It's just talk. I'll bet Bills his season tickets they dont actually go into the tax next year.

                        They have a recipe that doesnt require it. Pay top dollar for a single superstar, in this case its Oladipo, surround him with modestly priced, solid role players, because they know that's good enough for the playoffs.

                        Adding another high priced player would cause them to sacrifice key members of the supporting cast, in order to avoid the tax, which would then result in "not improving the team".

                        Its all a bunch of double talk. I could post 3 articles from IBJ with Herb specifically saying he wont go into the tax.
                        That of course would be a very foolish bet for him to make because it is almost impossible for the Pacers to go into the tax. They could be the most aggressive front office in the league with a blank check and they likely would still not get anywhere near the tax this offseason because of cap rules.

                        The more interesting question is how close they get to the tax in 2 years after Sabonis, Oladipo, and maybe Leaf get raises. That's when the decisions from this year's free agency may push them close to the tax range at that time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          For very personal reasons I have to believe that if Herb thought that going into the tax meant a title he would do it. I say very personal reasons because I very specifically decided to stop my season tickets and was pretty much done with the team when they traded (yes UB it was a trade) away Brad Miller for Scott Pollard because they did not want to pay Miller. The reason I specifically decided to leave was not because I thought Brad was the end all be all of a player (I did like him a lot though) but it was because I was under the impression that Simon would not pay to win. So if he wasn't willing to spend his money on a winner then I wasn't going to waste my time rooting for a team that would not do what it took to win. However I heard directly from Herb's mouth that he would have paid the tax it was just that Donnie Walsh told him that it was not worth going into the tax with him because he felt that they could be just as good without him.

                          So my very uneducated opinion on the matter is this. Simon will pay, but I have a feeling the question he asks very specifically is "will this win a title or at the least put us in the finals". If the answer is yes he will pay if the answer is no, he won't.

                          The only real place BillS and I differ about money is who created the culture of dumpster shopping? He believes it was Bird and to a point I think he is right. However I believe that Larry was given a very strict budget for non contending teams and thus went and got players who fit the budget. Where I will agree with BillS is that Bird probably wasn't the best judge of players.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            At this point, I don't give a damn if he's willing to spend or not. Give me the freaking LIST of free agents who WANT to come to Indiana, then we can discuss whether or not Simon is being too cheap.


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Never mind...I found the list.

                              https://www.indystar.com/story/sport...ned/421879001/

                              David West is still the "top" signing for the Pacers.


                              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X