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

    Originally posted by justinDOHMAN View Post
    Let him go. If he would rather be in canada, losing, and riding the pine behind jose is he really the player we wanted on our team?

    We have a great up and coming team and we will be fine without him.
    as opposed to "in indiana, losing, and riding the pine behind tj ford?"

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by dal9 View Post
      as opposed to "in indiana, losing, and riding the pine behind tj ford?"
      Jack started.
      Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        Re-signing Foster when Bird did was a poor poor decision. Why let the market set the price on Jack, but not Foster? If both are going to be part time starters, 6 mil is ridiculous for Foster, but not 5 mil for Jack! I'm not advocating re-signing Jack for 5 mil, but lets be honest Foster is up in age with previous back problems and a 1 trick pony. IMO, losing Foster isn't the end of the world. I still contend that if Foster had become a FA he would NOT have left the Pacers, and he would still be a Pacer at less than 12 mil. Giving Foster 12 mil for 2 years was a poor GM decision by Bird. One that put a grin on Foster's face all the way to the bank.
        Wasn't Foster going to be an Unrestricted FA?

        Unlike Jack's situation where we can choose to match any offer that Jack gets, if Foster was an UFA....we wouldn't have had that choice. As for giving him $6 mil a year, wasn't he already earning $5.5 mil at the end of his contract. I don't think that he'd be earning that much less ( despite being a "one-trick" pony that was injury prone ) over the next 2 years....ESPECIALLY if TPTB saw him as a key Player to help the Pacers return to the Playoffs over the next 2 seasons.

        With 20/20 clear hindsight now, I ( and many of you ) agree that extending Foster may cost us Jack. Of course, knowing what we know now makes the decision to extend Foster at $6mil a year look bad. But giving Foster a $6 mil a year contract LAST SEASON ( before anyone knew that the Luxury Tax was going to be reduced and...as a result....be put in a tough position to match a decent contract for Jack for fear of going over the Luxury Tax ) was IMHO a reasonable ( if not sound ) decision given what TPTB knew AT THAT TIME. The Pacers FO didn't want to risk the chance of losing a Player like Foster to the FA as a UFA and therefore decided to extend him at a price that seemed reasonable at that time.

        If TPTB knew that the Luxury Tax threshold was going to be reduced that much a full season ago when Foster's contract was extended....it's entirely possible that we'd have waited until after Foster's Contract expired to extend him.

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        My feelings is that if Jack had already played a year for the Pacers, Jack would have been signed in October. If Bird knew then, what he knows now about Jack playing no doubt in my mind he would have. Now, he in a position to have to overpay to keep him when it isn't necessary. Bird made 2 costly decisions.
        Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
        Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.

        Bird in effect chose Foster over Jack last offseason, something that I for one severely disagree with.
        If the Pacers choose to not match Jack's offer, it won't be because they think that Jack is going to be overpaid at $5mil a year ( which IMHO is debateable as to whether TPTB think that what Jack contributes is worth $5mil and therefore overpaying him at that price ).....it will be because paying him that much will likely force them to go over the Luxury Tax.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


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

          3 years from now, if we're complaining about not keeping Jack - this team is in a bunch of trouble. As a BU - sure - he's fine. But backup PGs aren't the rarest of commodities in the league. Starters - that's a different story. I think the majority of us are in agreement that JJ isn't starter type material on a contending team.

          So, looking ahead - but not so far ahead as the end of his contract - is not having him around really a bad thing ??

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
            Look at our depth at the 4/5 without Foster & tell me again it was a mistake to give him another two years.
            It was a mistake to give him another two years.

            If this is about our 4/5 depth last year, he still would've been here. If it's about the next two years, we easily could have retained him as a FA if we were really prepared to pay him that much. (Does anyone really think anybody would give Jeff the full MLE? We gave him over 6mil a year.)

            We extended him but it was pointless. We didn't get a good deal, and we likely overpaid. Bid against ourselves for a very average player—probably Bird's worst move here in the last couple years.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by MrSparko View Post
              Jack started.
              i dont think he would have been guaranteed it coming into this year.
              its not impossible that he would beat out calderon either.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                Does anyone really think anybody would give Jeff the full MLE? We gave him over 6mil a year.
                Yep.

                I could ask the question a different way: Does anyone really think that Jack will get an offer of over 4mil/year? Nobody's gonna pay him that.

                All it takes is one desperate team.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  We can't upgrade our PG position without trading Ford.
                  We Can't Upgrade our Team without Trading MURPHY.
                  OH YEAH WE GOT TYLER HANSBROUGH!!!! WAIT A MINUTE....IM A DUKE FAN

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    I can think of more annoying habits.

                    Comment


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

                      Let me get this straight, FOSTER cost the team Jack? Not the 20m or so to Dun/Murph, or Tinsley's money?

                      No, Foster getting about market value. Foster who is the most often mentioned trade chip the Pacers actually own. Foster, one of 2 serious "face of franchise" players going into last season (Granger the other).

                      This isn't even hindsight 20/20, this is blurry vision hindsight as Cable pointed out.

                      The reason I've been having my s***fit since the GS trade every other day is because of THESE ISSUES. Back then I said this was a problem. I worried right off the bat that it might be Granger they'd have trouble signing, or at least some other player they wanted to keep on a new contract.

                      You can't impulse trade just to quickly fix an image problem. It's still a business. Knee-jerk reactions based on the moment rather than longterm end up CRUSHING you. Not just hurt, but big time pain.

                      We have people here that cite ONE SEASON by both Dun and Troy as justification of those contracts. One season where the player MAYBE lived up to his deal. That's how bad it is.

                      Jack and Al were making enough less than Troy and Dun to carve out this extra space for JJ. And Jackson could have been cut loose by now as a FA.

                      But no, people had to have the old instant fix. Based on the huge gate losses the last 2 years and finanical binds like this one for JJ would someone please cite one real benefit of pushing that trade through then.

                      I and a few others hated the deal then and it has never panned out. Only in the blind faith rationalization method does it seem "not too bad".

                      I DO NOT HATE Troy or Dun, I even enjoy watching them play when they are on. I accept that our best hope is getting plenty from them. But that still doesn't make that trade a good deal.

                      Tinsley's situation stinks, but at least that was the player undermining the situation and catching them off-guard with his poor response to the coaches. TPTB knew the length and cost of the GS deals.

                      All to get rid of Jackson in a hurry and to get Ike. The fans still didn't show up once Jackson was gone and Ike was a monster bust. Everything they went for was a flop. They would have been better off trading Jackson for the rights to a Euro and just cutting contract space, and then trading Al for Ike if they wanted him so bad.



                      How Foster's extra million a year becomes the scapegoat here I have no idea.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        If he's signed the offer sheet, then that's the contract he'll play under (unless all three parties: Jack, Tor, & IND agree to rescind, which won't happen.)
                        Yep. And frankly since this means he's giving up his right to go full FA next season as well as the chance to chase the larger raise from the Pacers, I'd say he's being smart but not greedy.

                        He wants security. He could have tried to get a bit more from Indy and cited this offer as the reason. My guess is via backchannels they had indications that the Pacers weren't willing to go this far.

                        And I don't see a guy looking to secure a certain 20m vs only the remaining year with the Pacers as greedy, dumb or whatever. Why wouldn't the Pacers match it? And if they aren't going to why in the F should he just let them boss him into a lot less money?


                        Gee, give me the emails of some of your bosses so I can let them know that you are all about giving up your annual raise and definitely want to work in the shadow of potential layoffs next year because you are there "for the team".

                        The team should be about looking out for the player just as much as the player should be looking out for the team. That's what being a team is. The Pacers should want to give Jack market value just as much as Jack should want to stay in Indy.

                        I'd guess than in this case both sides want that but realize it just might not be possible unfortunately. Maybe if they'd traded TJ and reduced salary that way, but it didn't happen.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                          We had a bunch, but Naptown and Shade got into 'em.
                          Brilliant. My hat is off sir.

                          Comment


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

                            BTW, if you match Jack and just barely squeeze in at the tax or take a smallish hit, it does buy you something of great value...

                            You can safely trade Ford. Maybe even pair Ford and Foster if it comes to that. Perhaps Jeff is thinking about wrapping it up before his back gets worse, still wants to live in Indy, and wouldn't mind the 3-4 months out of town for a trade deadline move, perhaps to a contender even.

                            Pacers step down on the deal (let the other team exercise the 125% salary exemption), obviously let their own TE go away for tax buffer space, and everything is safe on the money side. Maybe the deal is even for an expiring, or one piece of it at least.

                            Pay now for the flexibility later to improve the situation much more.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                              Look at our depth at the 4/5 without Foster & tell me again it was a mistake to give him another two years.
                              Our depth last year was Murphy/Hibbert/McRoberts/Nesto/Baston.

                              Yes, I would have been fine with that. I would have loved to have seen Mac and Hibbert get more minutes last year. I would have loved to see Nesto actually go out there and earn about a fourth of his contract. Heck, I would have even loved to see Baston run the floor a little bit more in Obie's system.

                              I'm fine with that group. Better yet, if you want to get back into some far off hindsight, we should have kept Josh Powell around at the minimum a couple of years ago.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                                With 20/20 clear hindsight now, I ( and many of you ) agree that extending Foster may cost us Jack. Of course, knowing what we know now makes the decision to extend Foster at $6mil a year look bad. But giving Foster a $6 mil a year contract LAST SEASON ( before anyone knew that the Luxury Tax was going to be reduced and...as a result....be put in a tough position to match a decent contract for Jack for fear of going over the Luxury Tax ) was IMHO a reasonable ( if not sound ) decision given what TPTB knew AT THAT TIME. The Pacers FO didn't want to risk the chance of losing a Player like Foster to the FA as a UFA and therefore decided to extend him at a price that seemed reasonable at that time.
                                FWIW I have hated that extension since it was spawned.

                                Also, while I guess 4m a year for Jack would have possibly seemed like a bit much last year, TPTB still should have prepared for it somewhat. To me it was basically a given that Jack would score a lot as a Pacer, I've never been a believer in Ford's ability to stay healthy which automatically makes Jack's job much more encompassing (although he did end up doing staying healthy, just stating my opinion as of last offseason) and O'Brien's system makes EVERYONE'S stats like gaudy because he emphasizes a high octane offense so much.

                                All of this being said, I'm not even that adamant about keeping Jack around here. I HOPE TPTB really believe in AJ Price, believe that he makes Jack expendable (thus signing D Jones), and thus just let Jack go, rather than being completely blindsided by Toronto's move. I hope.
                                Last edited by idioteque; 07-12-2009, 03:51 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X