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

Keeping Paul George and David West

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

  • #31
    Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    It seems like just three weeks ago V was saying DWest wouldn't make it just a few more seasons, and now he thinks he's a max contract?
    Well, he thinks more teams other than just the Pacers aren't as good as he is in regards to evaluating talent and player value.

    We gotta get this guy a FO position. If nothing else we could be showered with free tickets.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

      I was just asking count55/JayRedd about this (Paul's next contract).

      Odds are barring major shifts in his projected outlook, he's going to get a max contract, and they are telling me that if we designate Paul as the guy we give a 5 year extension to (everyone else can only be 4 years), he will get as much money from that extension as he could possibly get the following summer as a RFA, so odds are good we'll just lock him up before next Halloween with that 5 year deal, and that will probably be worth about $81mm, give or take.

      Apparently Paul would even retroactively boost his extension contract if he later met certain requirements to qualify for 30% of the cap versus the typical 25%.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
        I know what max deal is dude. I don't believe he will ask for a max deal because i believe he doesn't want to leave the Pacers so asking for a max deal could really hurt the Pacers finacially
        He doesn't have to leave the Pacers to get the most money. In fact, I think the opposite would be true, if anything.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

          My thoughts on the subject:

          Paul will get the max. The only question is which max. Am I correct in saying that if he makes two all-star appearances on his rookie deal, the ceiling gets raised? The Derrick Rose exception? This will be taken care of in 18 months.

          I am pretty sure that West will get resigned. He is extremely important to our team. I would love to get him signed for 10-12 per year for at least 3 years. I fear it may be more. Perhaps our only saving grace will be that the PF market will be flooded this summer. J Smoove, Milsap, Jefferson are all mare than Mid-level players, maybe the money will run out before all of these guys get signed.

          That leaves Granger and Stephenson. The problem will not be next year, it will be 2014. We cannot afford 15 million for these two players. We will have to pick one of them.

          So the question becomes, do we let it ride through next season, or be proactive and trade Danny in the offseason to get a piece along with some cap relief. We have two waves coming. The first involves our current team. The second involves Roy, Paul, and George. Should we go all in on this wave, or trade a current piece for an additional piece on the next wave. That is the question we will be faced with this offseason.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            Well, he thinks more teams other than just the Pacers aren't as good as he is in regards to evaluating talent and player value.

            We gotta get this guy a FO position. If nothing else we could be showered with free tickets.
            No really, my point is that there is always some crazy team in the NBA that is willing to take that risk, see Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Elton Brand, etc, just because I don't think West is a max player doesn't mean that I don't expect some crazy team to offer him the max or close to it.

            I was talking to the Rocketguy and he is telling me that Houston is going to be all over West, and something that we know about Houston is that their front office knows how to play with the contracts(see Lin and Asik).
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
              My thoughts on the subject:

              Paul will get the max. The only question is which max. Am I correct in saying that if he makes two all-star appearances on his rookie deal, the ceiling gets raised? The Derrick Rose exception? This will be taken care of in 18 months.
              Not quite that easy.

              He would have to be VOTED IN as an all-star by the fans two years in a row, so that won't happen now even if he had it happen next season.

              He could also get 30% of cap instead of 25% if he makes an all-nba team both now and next year (a long shot for this year, I think, but maybe).

              He could also get 30% if he wins the MVP award in the next two years (not holding my breath).

              So the door isn't closed on 30%, but it's not exactly probable.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                West's max is a good deal higher than the rookie max that Roy got or that Paul G. is going to get. Roy and Paul's first year started/will start at around $14m. As a 10th year player next year, I believe that West qualifies for 35% of the cap, or approximately $19m on the first year. That's a big investment for any team. Personally I don't think he'll get THAT max ($19m), but anywhere in between $12m to $15m won't surprise me.

                I also think that the Pacers will use their designated player status to extend Paul George next year. That's the deal that Harden got this year, i.e. same thing that Hicks/MAStamper is talking about a few posts up. The Pacers don't HAVE to do it of course, but when you have an obvious max type player on your hands, you do everything you can to keep him sweet. That would be the reasoning as to why we should extend him early versus letting him get to the FA market a la Hibbert.

                In addition, I suspect we'll need to reserve a pool of money for Lance Stephenson, assuming he continues to develop. Put together, that's a lot of money in future contracts. Which is why a lot of people (including myself) think that someone from the core will be sacrificed eventually in order to stay under the tax.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                  Maybe we should just trade any player that becomes a free agent in the next 3 years because a chance exist that some other team will offer them a contract that we won't want to match.
                  Lance has been a nice surprise for a 2cd. round pick. but as a starter he's only averaging 8 points. Once Granger returns I fear this will go down a little as he moves to the bench. I wouldn't worry about a team offering him more then MLE money and that's a stretch. However, if we want to keep Granger even MLE money for a bench player may be too much. Lance may be a better player to move this summer as much as I hate to lose him I'd rather keep Granger.
                  Last edited by Pacerized; 02-14-2013, 11:55 AM. Reason: typo
                  Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    West's max is a good deal higher than the rookie max that Roy got or that Paul G. is going to get. Roy and Paul's first year started/will start at around $14m. As a 10th year player next year, I believe that West qualifies for 35% of the cap, or approximately $19m on the first year. That's a big investment for any team. Personally I don't think he'll get THAT max ($19m), but anywhere in between $12m to $15m won't surprise me.

                    I also think that the Pacers will use their designated player status to extend Paul George next year. That's the deal that Harden got this year, i.e. same thing that Hicks/MAStamper is talking about a few posts up. The Pacers don't HAVE to do it of course, but when you have an obvious max type player on your hands, you do everything you can to keep him sweet. That would be the reasoning as to why we should extend him early versus letting him get to the FA market a la Hibbert.

                    In addition, I suspect we'll need to reserve a pool of money for Lance Stephenson, assuming he continues to develop. Put together, that's a lot of money in future contracts. Which is why a lot of people (including myself) think that someone from the core will be sacrificed eventually in order to stay under the tax.
                    The CBA has made it this way. The small market teams must jettison good players to stay under that tax but big market teams will snap them up not caring about that tax. This is the major reason the Pacers and other small market teams will never really compete for a championship. Their ceiling is to make the playoffs and perhaps win a round and if they have a magic year win two rounds but that takes a lot of magic, indeed........ ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      The CBA has made it this way. The small market teams must jettison good players to stay under that tax but big market teams will snap them up not caring about that tax. This is the major reason the Pacers and other small market teams will never really compete for a championship. Their ceiling is to make the playoffs and perhaps win a round and if they have a magic year win two rounds but that takes a lot of magic, indeed........ ...
                      Really, how has this CBA made it any worse? That's ALWAYS what it was unless the small market team wanted to pay the LT. At least under this CBA they don't lose 100% of LT revenue by going over the threshold by a couple of dollars, and if big market teams want to ridiculously overspend it is going to cost them a LOT more than it used to.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                        It's probably going to come down to Lance versus Danny.

                        Using my head and not my heart, Lance would maybe be the better choice due to age and potential, but I still don't fully trust Lance on/off the court. I'm a LOT closer than I used to be though. If Danny can come back from this 80+% of what he used to be, then I still like him more than Lance, personally. But he's also older. But then again he's not TOO old to be considered part of the next phase (3+ years) of the franchise, either.

                        What'll really **** us up is if someone throws a **** ton of cash at West. I'm hoping he gets offered no more than 12-13m a year. If someone goes wild throwing cash at him... oh boy...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          The Pacers and other small market teams will never really compete for a championship.
                          yes, small market teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City are just doomed to be doormats forever.

                          You need a dish on that motorhome.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Really, how has this CBA made it any worse? That's ALWAYS what it was unless the small market team wanted to pay the LT. At least under this CBA they don't lose 100% of LT revenue by going over the threshold by a couple of dollars, and if big market teams want to ridiculously overspend it is going to cost them a LOT more than it used to.
                            It's not clear yet how everything is going to play out, but one way the new CBA has made it worse is that luxury tax disproportionately hurts small markets more than big markets. To teams like the Pacers, the tax line is a virtual hard cap now - there is no way they are possibly crossing that line. Whereas before, we've seen teams like Memphis and Minnesota, and yes even the Pacers, pay the tax on occasion in order to keep key players or to add more pieces. That's not going to happen anymore.

                            It shouldn't be surprising that the first victims of the harsh new tax (OKC and Memphis) are small market teams. People sometimes point to New York losing Lin or Chicago losing Asik as signs that the tax is deterring big market teams - but actually both NY and Chicago are still scheduled to be tax paying teams this year. They may be deterred, but they're still operating above the tax line, and for NY at least it seems clear that they will continue to pay tax year in and year out as a matter of course. Does it make a big difference to the Pacers that NY is now operating at $90m instead of $100m team salary? It's still a huge advantage.

                            My fear is that the tax would just deepen the divide between "haves" and "have nots" - the tax club became even more exclusive (fewer teams willing to pay the tax), but it also just got even harder for a small market team to gate crash occasionally, for example, to keep a contending team together for a few years longer. Decade long runs like the Spurs would become virtually impossible - even the Spurs paid tax (I think twice) during their run.

                            There is still some hope. The really harsh taxes won't start until next year, so maybe the deterrent effect is just lagging. But it seems clear that a few teams find the tax perfectly acceptable - LA, NY, Brooklyn all ADDED salary this year, even with the harsh tax looming. Heck, even Toronto just made themselves a tax team (almost certain from next year). It seems that the new CBA just cemented the difference in expected spending levels between big and small market teams.
                            Last edited by wintermute; 02-14-2013, 01:25 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                              Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                              It's probably going to come down to Lance versus Danny.

                              Using my head and not my heart, Lance would maybe be the better choice due to age and potential, but I still don't fully trust Lance on/off the court. I'm a LOT closer than I used to be though. If Danny can come back from this 80+% of what he used to be, then I still like him more than Lance, personally. But he's also older. But then again he's not TOO old to be considered part of the next phase (3+ years) of the franchise, either.

                              What'll really **** us up is if someone throws a **** ton of cash at West. I'm hoping he gets offered no more than 12-13m a year. If someone goes wild throwing cash at him... oh boy...
                              It depends.

                              If we make a deep run at the end of this season, than it would be smarter to keep the starters together. Lance has been a good bench player, but he's not Danny. It's easier and cheaper to get a player that does for us what Lance does, than what Danny will do. Danny makes us a contender, Lance doesn't. The second we pick Lance over Danny, we're choosing not to compete for a championship during our "win now" years. And by the time Lance's ready, West is going to be too old.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Keeping Paul George and David West

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                yes, small market teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City are just doomed to be doormats forever.

                                You need a dish on that motorhome.
                                I think OlBlu will be proven wrong this year. If the Pacers extinguish the Heat in the playoffs I believe they will win the title
                                Smothered Chicken!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X