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

Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

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

  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Yes
    Well then... The signing bonus is just a disguised way of front loading. I would think that would help us match. I'd rather save some money down the road and see what Orlando has in store for us as a scorer. I would say Lance too but I'm way too iffy on him.

    Comment


    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

      Diaw to the Suns was another example. It just has to be something the other team doesn't want.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

        Originally posted by funnyguy1105 View Post
        Well then... The signing bonus is just a disguised way of front loading. I would think that would help us match. I'd rather save some money down the road and see what Orlando has in store for us as a scorer. I would say Lance too but I'm way too iffy on him.
        The bonus counts all upfront and there is a 3 day grace period to sign any RFA as long as you are under the cap. If we hold off on signing HIll and Hibbert it will be easy to bring in Mayo or another guy.

        Signing bonuses can also be used as a way to have less count on the cap for the remaining years of the contract. IIRC Nick Collison was example of this.

        Comment


        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          The bonus counts all upfront and there is a 3 day grace period to sign any RFA as long as you are under the cap. If we hold off on signing HIll and Hibbert it will be easy to bring in Mayo or another guy.

          Signing bonuses can also be used as a way to have less count on the cap for the remaining years of the contract. IIRC Nick Collison was example of this.
          Good point. I'm a little dense on cap holds though. I thought that as soon as a RFA signs an offer sheet elsewhere their cap hold jumps to the new first year of their contract until the original team refuses to match the offer. If that was the case Hill's cap hold wouldn't change much even if he did sign and Hibberts could cut down our spending for FA... right?

          Comment


          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Diaw to the Suns was another example. It just has to be something the other team doesn't want.
            Yeah, Atlanta didn't want those 2 first round picks they gave to Phoenix!

            It's odd that you omit two first round picks from your response. Maybe because it doesn't support your argument?

            Comment


            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

              Originally posted by funnyguy1105 View Post
              Good point. I'm a little dense on cap holds though. I thought that as soon as a RFA signs an offer sheet elsewhere their cap hold jumps to the new first year of their contract until the original team refuses to match the offer. If that was the case Hill's cap hold wouldn't change much even if he did sign and Hibberts could cut down our spending for FA... right?
              So in theory they can wait until the 3rd day to resign HIbbert and before that time also sign OJ or another FA with the remaining cap money. After they sign Hibbert they can use the MLE and/or resign any remaining FA that was on their 2012 roster (Fez, Barb, Lou etc.)

              Comment


              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Boozer lied from the beginning. It was a scam. He never changed his mind.
                I'm not debating if anyone lied or not, I don't know Roy's or Boozer's intentions.

                I'm only pointing out that it would not be illegal or unheard of for Roy to not honor a verbal agreement and sign with the Pacers.

                Comment


                • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  The pacers would lose value in any realistic sign and trade scenario with Portland. To merely entrain the possibility means they have given up in matching portlands offer, and thus kills any leverage they had as the team with right of first refusal.

                  If they felt they could deal with matching hibbert's offer...they'd just match the offer. Sign and trade discussions are the epitome of waving the white flag.

                  Also...Minnesota is not making offers to beg Portland not to match...they're offering junk they dont want in order to clear some salary.
                  They are offering a non-guaranteed contract and Derrick Williams. That would be a beyond-dumb way to clear cap.

                  Now re Hibbert SnT, it's debatable that we could get anything really good. The question to Portland here is basically "what would you give for a right to pay Hibbert 58 mil?" I doubt we would be very happy with the answer.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    So it could be that on the 11th we find out Roy's first year is something like 17-18m.
                    Roy's first year cannot be bigger 14 mil.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Let's make that easier to read: "You can give a signing bonus, which is paid upfront, but the signing bonus reduces the total amount of the contract, so the contract is no longer a true max; it's a little less. The max number is the max number, so you can never exceed the max, but the signing bonus allows the offer sheet to be more toxic because the entire signing bonus is paid up front."
                      You can give the actual money upfront, but it will still be spread out in the books.
                      If he means it would be counted towards the 2013 Pacers cap/tax situation, I think he's wrong. It makes no sense considering the other rules.

                      The only case I know where you can do something like this is when you extend your own veterans. Like the Thunder did with Nick Collison.
                      They managed to add a huge signing bonus in their books up front, but legally it was 'renegotiation' not 'signing bonus'.
                      But that's got nothing to do with Hibbert's situation.
                      Last edited by ballism; 07-06-2012, 04:06 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        No, it isn't enforceable, from a legal standpoint. Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

                        That does not change the fact that in the NBA, players, agents and GMs have to do repeat business with each other. Which is why no player will ever PUBLICLY commit to a team like Roy has done, and then back out at the last second. It's never happened, and it won't here.
                        It has happened. Greg Anthony and Kendall Gill. Pretty sure if memory serves me, it was in the same season, and never happened before or since. However, it happened. Agree it won't happen here, obviously.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Roy's first year cannot be bigger 14 mil.
                          Teams can give out a large bonus at the time of signing that counts equally spread out across the contract. Like if he's set up for a 20 million dollar bonus (hypothetical, of course) it will count equally as 5 million cap wise on each year of the contract.

                          There are loopholes and ways around things. Also the bonus can only be a certain percentage of the contracts worth, and I don't remember what that number is.

                          *edit* ... late to that party. lol

                          Comment


                          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                            George Hill wants Roy back:

                            "That's the biggest thing," Hill said. "To keep things rolling you need to get everybody back so it's the way it was before. If we don't get Roy back, that puts us a big step back from what we're doing. We'll have to find another (center) who can fill in and we'll have to get used to playing with him. We need to get Roy back."

                            Comment


                            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                              Teams can give out a large bonus at the time of signing that counts equally spread out across the contract. Like if he's set up for a 20 million dollar bonus (hypothetical, of course) it will count equally as 5 million cap wise on each year of the contract.

                              There are loopholes and ways around things. Also the bonus can only be a certain percentage of the contracts worth, and I don't remember what that number is.

                              *edit* ... late to that party. lol
                              it will still have to amount to 13.7 mil with bonus.

                              He's eligible for something like 6 mil total signing bonus. You spread it over 4 years, 1.5 mil each (roughly; in reality it will be slightly growing year to year, like salary). So, his first year would be something like 12.3 mil salary and 1.4 mil in bonus, amounting to 13.7 mil.
                              Last edited by ballism; 07-06-2012, 05:08 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                                Yeah, Atlanta didn't want those 2 first round picks they gave to Phoenix!

                                It's odd that you omit two first round picks from your response. Maybe because it doesn't support your argument?
                                Two pretty late picks,

                                Miami gave up first rounders for bosh and lebron, too, and they weren't even restricted free agents Yes, they aren't that valuable if you plan on being a 50-win team every season.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X