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 Speed View Post

    I mean I'm all for guys getting what the market bears, this isn't the end of the world.

    What are other options at Center, if they don't? Spencer Hawes? Well, I'd like Spencer instead if it meant throwing a max concract at DWill.

    Here's the thing, its not just Roy for the Max in a bubble, you have to think of all the other moves you could make or not make because of it.
    Agreed that we'll be offering a 5 year non-max deal to Hibbert, but if Hibbert prefers the 4 year max deal offered by another team, then we'll just match that.

    Going for a different FA center as you suggested won't free up more money though. Right now, Hibbert counts only as $6.5m on our cap, even though he's expected to end up with a cap hit close to $13m. So we're not going have more cap money to throw at Deron etc unless you think Hawes or whoever is willing to take less than $6.5m.

    In any case, Deron not coming here isn't a function of money - we can surely find a way to clear the space if he's willing - he doesn't want to come here because it's Indiana. Hard truth, but there it is.

    Originally posted by OakMoses View Post
    Just for the record, if we match a max. offer for Roy while retaining the cap hold for Hill, we'll have about $4mm in cap space left. In other words, you can kiss any meaningful free agent acquisition good-bye.
    We still have plenty of time during the moratorium period to come up with another deal. Hibbert's cap hit doesn't become official until he signs. And I don't think the relationship between the Pacers and Hibbert is so bad that they can't prevail on him to wait on signing until they use the full cap space. It's quite common for teams to do so in fact.

    Originally posted by Really? View Post
    Really did not know that, so basically we can not trade Roy if we sign him? even after free agency is over?
    We can, just not to a 5 year deal with 7.5% raises. S&T in the new CBA is limited to 4 years, 4.5% raises, just like normal non-Bird FA. If we use Bird rights to sign him, then we'll have to wait 6 months I believe (like Nene).

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
      I accept that there is a small chance that Indiana doesn't match.

      If they don't, the Pacers better be willing to lose a huge chunk of its fan base though. I will stop following the NBA all together if the Pacers don't match. I'll still be a Pacers "fan" I guess you could say, only because I have some weird, unexplained loyalty to them, but if they don't match I will become the most apathetic fan of all time. I won't look up box scores on ESPN, I won't follow basketball at all, I simply won't care.

      I will refuse to follow a team that lets a player like him walk.
      I'll probably quit watching the NBA and start following IU more closely.


      Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
      Senior at the University of Louisville.
      Greenfield ---> The Ville

      Comment


      • Re: Sam Amick (Sports Illustrated): Portland Offers Roy Hibbert Max

        Interesting the huge premium being put on centers right after the NBA finals had 2 teams without a relevant center. Miami didn't have one and Perkins was worthless for OKC.

        Comment


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

          well, there are a handful of talented centers in the NBA, and only one LeBron James. Just because Miami got away with small ball doesn't mean anyone else can.

          This is the NBA. A huge premium has been put on centers since 1948. Miami struggled to guard both Roy Hibbert and Kevin Garnett, and pretty much breezed past OKC and NY, perimeter teams without any real low post threat.

          You think NBA GMs weren't paying attention to that? Why would they try to beat Miami at their own game rather than attack their weakness?
          Last edited by Kstat; 07-01-2012, 10:06 AM.

          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 Kstat View Post
            well, there are a handful of talented centers in the NBA, and only one LeBron James. Just because Miami got away with small ball doesn't mean anyone else can.

            This is the NBA. A huge premium has been put on centers since 1948.

            Celtics played small ball and almost beat the Heat with a bunch of 35 year olds.
            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

            Comment


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

              That really sucks but it's not surprising. It shouldn't change the Pacers plans but they now have less time to pull things off. Hopefully Hibbert wants to stay here and he's been asked to give us time to work to bring in an impact free agent before signing anything. I hate to say it but we should match. Once we get another free agent signed, we'll be in cap purgatory for the next 4-8 years and we'll never be able to bring in another center as good as Hibbert. Go land Nash, then sign Hibbert and move on.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


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

                dumping the ball to 6'11" Kevin Garnett on the low block against 6'8" Joel Anthony is not "small ball."

                Boston played the same style they always did. They just did it with a smaller lineup.

                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 Nuntius View Post
                  Re-signing Roy is something that we must absolutely do. If we don't, we'll be back in mediocrity. Re-signing Hill is not necessary.

                  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

                  You need Hibbert to continue to go forward, but Hill isn't a necessity to go forward.

                  People act as if Hill is something special, well he's not. If he was, Pop would have kept Hill and did "whatever was necessary" to to re-sign Hill. There are other players who are better PG's not with the name Nash, D'Will, or CP3. I look for OJ to be a better SG than Hill, and he'll be on a rookie contract. So "thanks again" Nuntius for stating the obvious for others to see!

                  Comment


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

                    I think we should sign and trade Hibbert.... I'm not sure he's worth the max. But being a top five center in the league he has a lot of value, you could get a star in a less valued position... Last thing you want to do is overpay a guy long term, the best thing you can do is trade a guy when he's in his prime. At his age Hibbert isn't going to get much better, but with his size and skill set he's a very high commodity in the league, make someone give up a lot for him.

                    Comment


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

                      Its hard for me to get my mind around paying a max deal to a player who isn't even the best player on your team. I'm a huge fan of Roy the player and Roy the good guy, but its just a tough pill to swallow, isn't these type of deals the ones that hinder teams getting better, moving forward, and pretty much lock them into however good they are at that moment? I understand its the going rate, I understand its how things are set up... just a tough one. Does this keep you from resigning Paul George in 2 years to a long term deal? Trying to think past, Roys a great guy, rare commodity thing and think about the future of the franchise.

                      Now, read half of what I said and rip me for being a hater.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        That really sucks but it's not surprising. It shouldn't change the Pacers plans but they now have less time to pull things off. Hopefully Hibbert wants to stay here and he's been asked to give us time to work to bring in an impact free agent before signing anything. I hate to say it but we should match. Once we get another free agent signed, we'll be in cap purgatory for the next 4-8 years and we'll never be able to bring in another center as good as Hibbert. Go land Nash, then sign Hibbert and move on.
                        That's not completely true. D west and D Jones come off the books next year. That's about 12 million-ish, give or take. But assuming we bring west back, we won't be players in the FA market

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          dumping the ball to 6'11" Kevin Garnett on the low block against 6'8" Joel Anthony is not "small ball."

                          Boston played the same style they always did. They just did it with a smaller lineup.


                          Just because you have a 6'11 guy on the floor doesn't mean you're not playing small ball. Kevin Durant is 6'11, Paul George is 6'10 and so on. Garnette is a PF playing center in my opinion and a lot of his baskets are mid range jumpers. He doesn't bang down low like most bigs do. Also, Joel Anthony only played 70 minutes in the series. That's 10mpg. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I felt like the Celtics were playing small ball all season. Jermaine O'neal was originally their center and they moved KG from PF to center and then slid Brandon Bass from SF from to PF. So they had a PF playing C and a SF playing PF. Rondo was constantly pushing the temp and running the floor. He commented on how it was easy to do so because the Heat players stood back complaining about the refs.
                          Last edited by TOP; 07-01-2012, 10:25 AM.
                          "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                            I think we should sign and trade Hibbert.... I'm not sure he's worth the max. But being a top five center in the league he has a lot of value, you could get a star in a less valued position... Last thing you want to do is overpay a guy long term, the best thing you can do is trade a guy when he's in his prime. At his age Hibbert isn't going to get much better, but with his size and skill set he's a very high commodity in the league, make someone give up a lot for him.
                            If as a franchise, you have one max deal, in your budget, wouldn't you rather spend it on an all-star Point Guard?

                            Comment


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

                              Let Hibbert go and pick up Kaman
                              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                              Comment


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

                                Roy is not currently worth the max. But quality true bigs are in short supply and with his work ethic and the consistant improvement he has made, you have to match and hope he gets there. But the Pacers can't be asleep at the wheel as they were during the LB & DW tag team era though. You keep Roy but you have to 1) get him a PG that can get him the damn ball 2) be ready to cut your losses if it appears to be a mistake - not wait until you get 100% value. If he regresses (I don't think he will) you have to look to move him quickly. The team has a history of holding on to mistakes and them trading them at their lowest point. That can't happen. And they can't lose him now for nothing.

                                I hope he signs the offer sheet with Portland. The shorter contract is more beneficial to the Pacers, IMO, than offering 5 years and slightly less salary. The shorter contract is going to make it quicker and easier to get out from under in the chance that it becomes a mistake.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X