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

2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

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

  • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    Disclaimer: I'm going to use statistics dangerously to make a point.

    Is it really a bad decision to offer a guy 8.7% of your Luxury Tax Threshold when he's producing 12.5% of your points, 19% of your assists, 7.8% of your rebounds, and 15.3% of your steals?

    If you answered no, then you don't think it's a bad decision to pay Jack $6 mil this year.
    So...if Jack leaves, we're going to produce 12.5% fewer points, 19% fewer assists, 7.8% fewer rebounds, and 15.3% fewer steals?

    Comment


    • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

      guys, I honestly think we will retain jack. I can't imagine toronto giving him the full mle. I think it's time for Danny to use his super negotiation powers on jack to try and keep him. He told us at the beginning of the offseason that he owes the pacers. I think he'd want to stay here if the price was right.
      Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

      Comment


      • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

        Originally posted by pianoman View Post
        guys, I honestly think we will retain jack. I can't imagine toronto giving him the full mle. I think it's time for Danny to use his super negotiation powers on jack to try and keep him. He told us at the beginning of the offseason that he owes the pacers. I think he'd want to stay here if the price was right.
        It's not up to Jack any more. If an offer sheet has been signed, then whether he stays here or not is entirely up to the Simons and Bird.

        Comment


        • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          So, you don't think we can do better in the next 3 years? I guess I don't share your pessimism.

          Like others have said, I doubt TO is messing around with the offer. If that is the case and they offer full MLE.... We move on without him. I like Jack too, but I feel we can do better for the money over the long haul.
          I'm just saying, I think we found our PG. We were struggling to find one last summer and we got 2, one of them didn't fit in and the other played very well for us. If we find another PG that's equally as good if not better, then we sign him or trade Ford for him and have both Jack and the PG on the team and see who plays better for us.

          Comment


          • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

            From Toronto reporter Doug Smith its a 4 year deal prob in 20-25 mil range ,if true, I think its very unlikely Bird and the Pacers match unless as part of a sign and trade.

            Comment


            • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              So...if Jack leaves, we're going to produce 12.5% fewer points, 19% fewer assists, 7.8% fewer rebounds, and 15.3% fewer steals?
              Actually, its worse than that. He produced those numbers for a little over 2million this year. And he did so playing both the 1 and the 2. If he stays here, hes not going to see hardly any minutes at the 2 this season as the situation has changed.

              Hes going Toronto where he will produce significantly less than those numbers for between 2 and 3 times more money.

              His production per dollar is about to fall through the floor.

              Its all about the value. If Diener ends up taking over the primary backup point guard and produces numbers similar to what Jack did playing the point last year, yet does it at less than 2 million...well you see where thats going. It allows you to then do other things with the savings, whether you put it into another player or just save it off the top.

              I love Jack and would love for him to stay. But not at any price-only at a price that makes sense. And if someone is in a position to overpay, then so be it-because we are not.
              Last edited by cinotimz; 07-11-2009, 09:39 PM.
              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

              Comment


              • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                From Toronto reporter Doug Smith its a 4 year deal prob in 20-25 mil range ,if true, I think its very unlikely Bird and the Pacers match unless as part of a sign and trade.
                link?
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                  No.

                  The point I'm dangerously trying to make is that he's producing at a rate that is higher than a $6 mil/year rate in comparison to other players on the team, and I have a hard time seeing how it that would be considered a bad contract when you factor in intangibles.

                  He's the first Pacer to publicly display leadership in several years, and that's the one word that has been thrown around more than any other since 2006.

                  I personally think that at $6 mil/year he means more to the Pacers than his absence. In no way do I think the Pacers match anything over 4/$18.

                  Comment


                  • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    It's not up to Jack any more. If an offer sheet has been signed, then whether he stays here or not is entirely up to the Simons and Bird.
                    Has there actually been a report that Jack has signed it? I was thinking all Ive seen is reports that one is being offered. But yes, if Jack signs, then its all over but the crying.
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      JJ winning the job over TJ was not a great thing. It was more a reflection of TJ not working out than JJ just playing so outstanding that he took the job.
                      On the other hand, I do seem to remember him being pretty darn good later in the season. He came through in the clutch multiple times for the team. His "value" or "worth" to this team might be greater than it would be to other teams. I think, in part, it depends on who you (the Pacers) think you can get to fill the same roll, and at what price that player will command.

                      Comment


                      • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                        Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                        Has there actually been a report that Jack has signed it? I was thinking all Ive seen is reports that one is being offered. But yes, if Jack signs, then its all over but the crying.
                        Wells attributed Jack as the source on his blurb.

                        Comment


                        • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          No.

                          The point I'm dangerously trying to make is that he's producing at a rate that is higher than a $6 mil/year rate in comparison to other players on the team, and I have a hard time seeing how it that would be considered a bad contract when you factor in intangibles.

                          He's the first Pacer to publicly display leadership in several years, and that's the one word that has been thrown around more than any other since 2006.

                          I personally think that at $6 mil/year he means more to the Pacers than his absence. In no way do I think the Pacers match anything over 4/$18.
                          I agree with your assessment of Jack. I love his leadership and intangibles. i just think your justification is off base. Yes your %'s are right, but you have to think, his minutes are no available for someone else. In economics think opportunity costs. Jacks true value is how much better he could do than someone who would potentially fill his place. Your percentages would be accurate if the person who replaced him put 0's up across the board.

                          Comment


                          • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            No.

                            The point I'm dangerously trying to make is that he's producing at a rate that is higher than a $6 mil/year rate in comparison to other players on the team, and I have a hard time seeing how it that would be considered a bad contract when you factor in intangibles.

                            He's the first Pacer to publicly display leadership in several years, and that's the one word that has been thrown around more than any other since 2006.

                            I personally think that at $6 mil/year he means more to the Pacers than his absence. In no way do I think the Pacers match anything over 4/$18.
                            He played more minutes than any other Pacer-hence why his numbers are a bit skewed. More importantly, there is almost no chance of that happening again next year. His production will likely actually fall off if he stays. And yet you would propose paying him over twice what he made last year? Using your own reasoning, theres no way you can do that.
                            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                            Comment


                            • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                              Yeah yeah. It's too dangerous of a point to make. I'm just nervous to see him leave and my knee-jerk is to match higher than is rational.

                              This is how bad contracts happen.


                              *edit* I'm also equally as nervous that we'll use the money now free from Jack leaving on a player that will not add much value to our team, because I don't think there are great pieces left for the price. If Jack leaves, which I think is 99% likely, I hope we sign a few pieces at minimum and keep the rest of the $.
                              Last edited by imawhat; 07-11-2009, 09:55 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                                I obviously meant $25m/4 years whenever I said 5 years by mistake.

                                Moving on:

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                Other contingencies:
                                Signing Mac
                                Signing Price
                                Signing 1st rounder next year
                                Filling out roster to 14-15 players
                                having a plan that takes into account all of the above.

                                We are not a team that needs this guy to take us far into the playoffs. Pacers are in transition and the point guard we need for the future is not yet on the team.
                                I like Jack better than either of those two, and I highly doubt Jarrett makes or breaks our decision to sign our 1st round pick next summer. You can always fill out the end of your bench with El Cheapos if need be.

                                I'm not advocating Jack's retention in some question to make the 2010 playoffs at all costs (though I'd certainly like to see us in). I just think Jack's a good player to have on your team, and IMO you keep those guys whenever you can or it makes sense to.

                                I'm not seeing a situation where it makes more sense to let him go than to keep him when the worst we're looking at is $25m/4yrs. It may be distasteful for some of you because for whatever reason you think it's overpaying him (and I don't necessarily disagree that it's overpaying). I just don't think it's a horrible contract for a guy like Jack. More than I'd like? Absolutely. But that's all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X