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

Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

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

  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    You just proved my point dude, he aint ready to be a super max player. He put up great numbers but we still lost that game. I'm just saying Super max players should be able to rise to the occasion when the team is a man down. Put the team on his back and so forth.

    Not saying he isn't a great player, I'm just saying he isn't worthy of that kind of contract yet. Lebron willed his team through the ECF and the Finals. Derrick Rose single handily beat the Pacers 3 playoffs ago (well okay Kyle Korver helped).
    He scored a third of our points in that game.


    Comment


    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

      Former Indiana University forward Christian Watford has signed with Hapoel Eilat, a pro basketball team in Israel.
      http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...ns-team-Israel

      Comment


      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        If you're willing to take the chance that he would never sign his QO and become a free agent after 2014-2015, then I guess it is worth the risk. But if you think you need to lock up your budding 23 year old superstar for as long as possible, you pay him the extra $3 million per year, and do it with a smile on your face.

        If you have to lose Lance Stephenson, who is not going to be worth nearly as much as people seem to think, because Paul George earned himself a bump in his max salary through sterling play over multiple seasons, well, you lose Lance Stephenson.

        Paul George for 6 more years > Paul George + Lance Stephenson for 2 more years.
        But this is the negotiation that comes way long before a QO. Of COURSE you don't go to that point - giving him only the QO and letting him "test the market" is dumb. But you don't open your extension negotiations by offering the maximum possible contract, not when there are easily explainable team game play reasons for not doing so.

        I could see PG getting unhappy if no negotiations are dropped and we only extend the QO. That would be a slap in the face considering how low the QO would be for him. But getting upset because the extension negotiations didn't start out with a SuperMAX deal? Nope. Don't see it.
        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


        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          I already said he is a great player, but when Hill went down...we lost, those are the games your best player takes over and wills the team to a series victory.
          Winning that Game 5 would have let Hill rest up even more before the Miami series, and then maybe he wouldn't have played so terribly in the ECF.
          Saying he's not a max player because of one game is completely ridiculous.


          Comment


          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

            Lance is going to get pay, the guy is only 22 years old and is doing all this things.

            Vs NY



            and then Vs Miami



            The sky is the limit for Lance and I'm glad Larry is back so we all know Lance is not going anywhere.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              I'm just gonna say it....while I love PG, +80million is an awful hard pill to swallow when you consider that he couldn't will this team to a series victory when Hill sat out that knicks game with a concussion. Super max players are able to do that. This Pacer's team relies on pretty much everyone being health to even complete at a high level. Guys like Rose, Lebron, and Durant, even Carmelo are the type who pick up the slack carry their teams when a major player goes down. I've not seen PG do this yet.

              It really sucks that the NBA has let their salaries come down to who has the most media hype to make an All Star team or who can make an All NBA team.
              PG at 23 is the second best two way wing player in the NBA. Max, Super Max, Super Duper Max, pay the man.

              Comment


              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                Every player has holes in their games, especially at 23. He's not being paid for last season, he's being paid for the next five.
                I think Lebron had more holes in his game at age 23 than Paul George, Lebron was/is just such an strong guy that he is/was able to dominate and destroy people, Lebron at age 23 was not able to shoot the ball(he is better now but not on the level of PG), he was not able to post up(just learned how to post up 2 years ago) and his free throw shooting at the end of games was not that great either, in fact Lebron was so bad at shooting that teams left him open all the time so he could throw bricks all day long, teams can't do that with PG.

                So to me Paul George only issues(at age 23) are his ball handling(not as bad as some think), some of his decision making(TO's) and that he needs to get stronger, other than that Paul George doesn't really have that many holes in his game(note that I'm not comparing PG to Lebron).
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Well the term "rising to the occasion" is technically refering to a singular event...like one big game.

                  He isn't worth super max money, he has too many holes his game still. Half a season's worth of stellar play does not make a super max player. I'd easily pay him Hibbert's contract though.
                  Game 6 against Miami. Team down 3-2, Paul puts up 28, 8, and 5.

                  Game 5 against ATL, series tied 2-2, Paul puts up 21, 10, 5 on 7/8 shooting.
                  Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-01-2013, 12:25 PM.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    But this is the negotiation that comes way long before a QO. Of COURSE you don't go to that point - giving him only the QO and letting him "test the market" is dumb. But you don't open your extension negotiations by offering the maximum possible contract, not when there are easily explainable team game play reasons for not doing so.

                    I could see PG getting unhappy if no negotiations are dropped and we only extend the QO. That would be a slap in the face considering how low the QO would be for him. But getting upset because the extension negotiations didn't start out with a SuperMAX deal? Nope. Don't see it.
                    I'm not sure if you read through what we were discussing before you jumped in, but you're trying to argue different things. Nobody is saying that Bird has an obligation to offer a 30% max up front. Now it's likely that Paul's agent will start the negotiation process at the max, because that's what he's worth, and Bird will know that as well. He won't argue that, and they will kick things off from there. Bird will probably explain that it would help his team's salary cap situation and financial ledgers, if Paul would be willing to take less. He will also try to sell it that any loss in salaried earnings Paul will suffer, will be more than made up through additional endorsements that will come with more and continued team success. All of that will happen.

                    Multiple people in this thread have argued that they would be willing to pay PG the 25% max, but it wouldn't be worth it to pay him the 30% max if he meets the criteria. They have also said they they "hope," and "expect," Paul to take less than what he can earn under the CBA.

                    I was arguing that it it doesn't make sense to be unwilling to pay PG a 30% max, if he earns it. You don't "let him walk" because you think he's worth $14 million, and he wants $17 million. You pay him whatever it takes to keep him, because he's proved himself worthy of that kind of commitment. If Paul decides he's willing to take less and stay, that's great, but when he doesn't, not one person should think any less of him.

                    Either way, it's all irrelevant, because Bird isn't so stupid to be willing to lose his potential superstar over a mere $3 million per year. If Paul makes an All-NBA team this year, Bird will be happy to give him a 30% max contract.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      27, 11 and 5 against Miami in game 5, yep he didn't rise to the occasion ..

                      Exactly and this is just like the game 5 against NYK. Paul scores a third of the teams points and they lose about 10 or 11, that's Paul's fault? Jesus Paul why didn't you score half of our points that's what a true max guy would have done!


                      Comment


                      • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                        I absolutely don't believe either of them should feel obligated to do this under any circumstances, but if after this year, one of Paul George or Lance Stephenson has to take less money to stay, shouldn't it be Lance Stephenson? Doesn't he owe the Pacers, and specifically Bird, much more than Paul George does?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                          Can a team offer Lance the type of poison pill deal that teams offered guys like Asik, Lin, and Landry Fields? That would be my fear.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            I absolutely don't believe either of them should feel obligated to do this under any circumstances, but if after this year, one of Paul George or Lance Stephenson has to take less money to stay, shouldn't it be Lance Stephenson? Doesn't he owe the Pacers, and specifically Bird, much more than Paul George does?
                            Well, and I'm Danny fan but if we know the choice here is Danny or Lance if they both command their money, shouldn't Danny be the guy to take less money? I'm not advocating that any of them would, but if it was anyone that was going to say hey I'll take a couple million less a year shouldn't it be the guy who's already made the boat load of cash?


                            Comment


                            • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Well, and I'm Danny fan but if we know the choice here is Danny or Lance if they both command their money, shouldn't Danny be the guy to take less money? I'm not advocating that any of them would, but if it was anyone that was going to say hey I'll take a couple million less a year shouldn't it be the guy who's already made the boat load of cash?
                              I've never considered Danny being back after this season feasible for either party. We don't even know if he can play. I've said this before, but if Granger turns out to be a guy worth keeping, we probably can't keep him.

                              If you're choosing between Granger and Lance at similar price points, that's a really, really easy choice.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Off Season News, Rumors, and Trades, etc. 2013

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Can a team offer Lance the type of poison pill deal that teams offered guys like Asik, Lin, and Landry Fields? That would be my fear.
                                Isn't that "no" since Lance will be a UFA and the contract we offer doesn't have to match any provisions of another contract?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X