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

Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

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

  • #46
    Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    If he doesn't work out it could be because we would have young options in the pipeline. Not just injury related.

    You guys are getting awfully frugal here over a pretty low salary for a big guy. I agree, right now he is very much overpaid. But at $3.5 million/year on a short deal, it's really not bad. It's certainly not going to prohibit us from going after the big money guys or anything.
    IF you can upgrade ANY postion you do it and for 3.5 million to 5 million we could get a younger version of Jeff.

    It use to be that Jeff could put up a pretty good fight with a number of 4's and 5's but now he can't. His age has caught up with him and his veteran tricks he use to get away with are now getting called by the refs.

    He has lost his usefullness on this team and we can't afford to pay him what other teams will surely pay him.
    Last edited by Gamble1; 01-20-2011, 07:50 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):

      Jason Collins
      Josh Powell
      Glen Davis
      Shaquille O'Neal
      Omer Asik
      Taj Gibson
      Ryan Hollins
      JJ Hickson
      Christian Eyenga
      Renaldo Balkman
      Shelden Williams
      Melvin Ely
      Chris Wilcox
      Greg Monroe
      Ben Wallace
      Jonas Jerebko
      Brandan Wright
      Ekpe Udoh
      Louis Amundson
      Jordan Hill
      Chuck Hayes
      Patrick Patterson
      Tyler Hansbrough
      Roy Hibbert
      Solomon Jones
      Josh McRoberts

      That is just going through team rosters alphabetically up through the Indiana Pacers. The list could go on and on. I understand feeling sentimental for Foster, but we don't owe him anything more at this point.

      He had a good run with us. The time has come for both parties to move on.
      That's great, but I'm asking which of those guys we could get, and don't be cheap and put guys who are on their rookie contracts on that list. Realistic options now.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        That's great, but I'm asking which of those guys we could get, and don't be cheap and put guys who are on their rookie contracts on that list. Realistic options now.
        I noticed the rookie contracts and the fact that many of the players couldn't play a legitimate center role for us. I kind of lost interest when I saw Soloman Jones on the list.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

          Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
          I'll be honest, I didn't think he would add much to the team this year but I didn't outright denounce him as having no value. He has been pretty damn great lately though. He's not as quick/athletic as he once was but damn is he a smart player. I'm amazed that his body has allowed him to play as much as he has recently. He logged 30 minutes last night against a really fast paced offensive team, and has been over 25 minutes in our last 3 games.

          Last 3:

          @Golden State - 3 points, 15 rebounds, 1 steal (30 minutes)
          @Los Angeles (C) - 4 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block (29 minutes)
          vs. Chicago - 6 points, 15 rebounds, 2 steals (26 minutes)


          I never would have thought before the season started that Jeff Foster would not only play significant minutes this season, but also increase his trade value in the process.
          Other than Foster and Hans, almost all of our bigs since Dale Davis have been girls in the paint. Brad Miller wasn't bad I suppose. ...but it's been a long ride downhill since Dale...

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            I agree with this. He has given us some positive this year. Not many expected that because of his injury. But how much more does he give us than Josh?

            Last night he had big rebounding numbers, but he really hurt us. Lee abused him with his jumper. And Foster, why the hell did he even take 8 shots? Especially when he only hit 1.
            See my post in the other thread about "what's wrong with the team." Basically, my observation is that yes, Foster does tend to miss a few bunnies, but his shot selection is not dictated by him. Rather he is the recipient of several dump-offs from team mates that find him as the only option when they are well-defended with the shot clock running down. Jeff would be the first person to tell you that he is not the first, second or third shooting option on the team. He had a decent %FG up until a couple of days ago. He doesn't take 8 shots in a game often, and although I did not see the whole GSW game, I would almost bet the farm that it was not by his design to do so.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
              Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):

              That is just going through team rosters alphabetically up through the Indiana Pacers. The list could go on and on. I understand feeling sentimental for Foster, but we don't owe him anything more at this point.

              He had a good run with us. The time has come for both parties to move on.
              I edited out your list for space considerations. I haven't followed many of those on the list so I really can't comment on those folks. But I can comment on a couple. Let's start with Roy. We are hardly getting similar production from him. He can't even stay out of foul trouble. Ben Wallace? He doesn't have any of the intangibles that Foster brings. Of the group, I like Hansbrough the best. He has shown that he can be a beast on the offensive boards and also has a nice offensive game. He can develop into a smart player; he already brings the energy and the mean streak.

              Folks seem so ready to dismiss Foster, but with Roy playing so crappy, it's clear that Foster is needed, if only in a supporting role. Unless there is a major fortification at that position next year, what is the harm in having him back at a more affordable price? I see no down side.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):
                How many of that list are on rookie contracts? If we're signing someone who isn't Foster, they're not going to be on a rookie contract either. If you're going to make a realistic list, you'd need to edit out all the rookie contract players. However I'd agree I wouldn't give Foster much on the chance he won't play most of the games. I'm not going to let the last couple weeks blind me to the last couple of years.
                Last edited by xBulletproof; 01-20-2011, 11:22 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                  Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                  Do you really think that we have someone else on the roster who would've done better on Lee? Honestly?
                  Tyler


                  Also, Foster doesn't have the instincts or the hops to compete when the game is on the line. Remember earlier in the year when we lost at the buzzer to the Bucks when Foster didn't even jump on the Bogut tip-in at the buzzer. I remember last season on a last second play when we threw it in to foster and he just stood there holding the ball while the final buzzer went off. Last night wasn't a final buzzer situation(thankfully he wasn't in) but he had already done his damage. I like Foster but he should never be in when the game is on the line.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                    How many of that list are on rookie contracts? If we're signing someone who isn't Foster, they're not going to be on a rookie contract either. If you're going to make a realistic list, you'd need to edit out all the rookie contract players. However I'd agree I wouldn't give Foster much on the chance he won't play most of the games. I'm not going to let the last couple weeks blind me to the last couple of years.
                    It is pretty much irrelevant whether they are on rookie contracts. The point is, that there are many other options available. The contract that cdash proposed may seem fairly small, but for a guy who contributes as little and as seldom as Foster has, it doesn't make sense to me.

                    The last line in this quoted post is extremely valuable, and I should have brought up this point already. Well done xBulletproof.

                    I just don't want to see the franchise continue to make the same mistakes that they have for much of the last decade. If they make the same mistakes with the same players, it's even worse.

                    Let's stop focusing on the past and present, and look to the future. At this point in his career, Foster should not be considered a part of that future.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      It is pretty much irrelevant whether they are on rookie contracts. The point is, that there are many other options available. The contract that cdash proposed may seem fairly small, but for a guy who contributes as little and as seldom as Foster has, it doesn't make sense to me.

                      The last line in this quoted post is extremely valuable, and I should have brought up this point already. Well done xBulletproof.

                      I just don't want to see the franchise continue to make the same mistakes that they have for much of the last decade. If they make the same mistakes with the same players, it's even worse.

                      Let's stop focusing on the past and present, and look to the future. At this point in his career, Foster should not be considered a part of that future.
                      No one is considering Foster part of the future. He's simply bridging the gap. Does it really even matter? We are discussing backup centers and guys that generally aren't going to play big minutes unless Hibbert goes down. You don't expect guys like that to be part of the future.

                      And it really does matter if they are on their rookie contracts. I asked what big men we could get that could come in and perform at Foster's level for around that price or less. We can't get guys on rookie deals. When their contracts are up, they are going to demand more money and are going to be out of that price range.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                        I don't understand why you say players on rookie contracts should be taken out of the list.

                        Wouldn't it be smarter to draft his replacement, if that's what your expecting, and pay them less money? I know we're talking about saving just 2 or 3 mil over a couple of years, but that adds up.

                        I really don't care either way, to be honest, but if you can get similiar production for less money, you have to do it. That's a no brainer.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I don't understand why you say players on rookie contracts should be taken out of the list.

                          Wouldn't it be smarter to draft his replacement, if that's what your expecting, and pay them less money? I know we're talking about saving just 2 or 3 mil over a couple of years, but that adds up.

                          I really don't care either way, to be honest, but if you can get similiar production for less money, you have to do it. That's a no brainer.
                          Sure, but I'm asking for solutions. If he named some prospects that were going to be available when we picked in the first or even sleeper second round guys, I wouldn't say much about it. But guys like Taj Gibson? Really? I mean, come on. The Bulls aren't getting rid of him and when his contract is up, rest assured he will be making a hell of a lot more than 3-4 million. I don't want a list of guys in the league who make around that much money who are producing on par or above what Foster is. I want guys who are realistically attainable for that price. I agree with the last part of your post, I'm just not sure it's as easy to find as you guys are making it out to be.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                            You're asking a question that can't be answered.

                            You tell me, or really Mackey, which players are going to be available with a late pick and I'm sure a list can be made. But a lot of things need to happen between here and there, things that cannot be predicted.

                            Merely stating "drafting a replacement" is a solution, even if it isn't a very detailed one.

                            EDIT: Finding a Foster really isn't that hard. Teams do it every year.

                            While I like Jeff, and I like having him on the Pacers squad, I think a lot of guys are emotionally attached to him just because he's been with the Pacers. That's not good business practice.

                            If Jeff wants to remain a Pacer, he should probably make some concessions. The Pacers have overpaid for his services for a long time now. They shouldn't do it again, and they're not wrong if they ask to pay him his market value.

                            Players shouldn't get extra money just because they've been with the team for so long.

                            EDIT2: Again, it really doesn't matter to me, because it is Jeff and he's been a damn good person while in a Pacers uniform, but this is the exact reason why the NBA is in the shape that it's in. If teams continue to overpay 10-15th guys on the roster, then they're going to overpay the other guys even more.

                            Teams, and players, need to get their sense of what their values actually are and stop with the non-sense overpaying just because they can. It's hurting everyone.
                            Last edited by Since86; 01-21-2011, 12:14 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              Just because he has been here forever, that doesn't mean he is a good player. He is grossly overpaid for his production, and has been for years. He is not that good. We can do better for that kind of money.

                              If he wants to retire as a Pacer, he should show the team the loyalty that they have shown him, and hang them up after this season.

                              "Four Hall-of-Famers. And Jeff Foster."

                              Got a good laugh out of that on Monday
                              .
                              Yeah I laughed at that as well, at first.

                              Then after letting it sink in I sat down and cried for about a half hour.


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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?

                                We'll just agree to disagree. I don't think you can really count on a rookie to give you the veteran presence that Foster gives you, but if you are looking solely at production and not taking into account intangibles, then you're probably right. I'm biased because I love Foster and I love the way he plays the game. I don't think giving him $3 million/year is fiscally irresponsible or a contract that is going to hinder our ability to sign the core guys we want.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X