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

Players we should pursue in the off-season

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

  • #16
    Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

    Even if you were right about our FO looking to move Hibbert (no, I'm not convinced), it would need to be moving him for basically no incoming salaries in order to open salary room for free agency. I don't really see how that could be done... So, it is possible to deal Hibbert for alternative assets, but not for getting into the free agent market... Sorry.

    And about West - talks in 2013 don't count much in 2015. Yeah, sure he thought at that time that he would have already won a ring here by now and would be riding to the sunset with retiring a year early... Talk is cheap and you may believe yourself when you project far enough to the future.

    But, HOW OFTEN does someone who is not seriously injured REALLY retire leaving 12 mil on table. List me ALL examples you find - is it like 1) no one, 2) nada, 3) still searching...

    If West would really feel so unwilling to go through all the rigours of NBA season, he would already now request for an occasional night off and coming from bench with limited minutes (we might actually benefit if he did that). But no, he is dragging on as a starter and will do so next season if the change doesn't come from Vogel. Even if it does, he will collect that chaque and be in our 15-men roster.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

      Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
      Even if you were right about our FO looking to move Hibbert (no, I'm not convinced), it would need to be moving him for basically no incoming salaries in order to open salary room for free agency. I don't really see how that could be done... So, it is possible to deal Hibbert for alternative assets, but not for getting into the free agent market... Sorry.

      And about West - talks in 2013 don't count much in 2015. Yeah, sure he thought at that time that he would have already won a ring here by now and would be riding to the sunset with retiring a year early... Talk is cheap and you may believe yourself when you project far enough to the future.

      But, HOW OFTEN does someone who is not seriously injured REALLY retire leaving 12 mil on table. List me ALL examples you find - is it like 1) no one, 2) nada, 3) still searching...

      If West would really feel so unwilling to go through all the rigours of NBA season, he would already now request for an occasional night off and coming from bench with limited minutes (we might actually benefit if he did that). But no, he is dragging on as a starter and will do so next season if the change doesn't come from Vogel. Even if it does, he will collect that chaque and be in our 15-men roster.


      West is old school. I just don't see him doing it for the money. As for Roy, there are a multitude of teams you could move Roy to for cap savings. You don't need to move him for nada.... just a player on a cheap deal. To Denver for Wilson Chandler, to the Sixers for Wroten or Covington, to the Celtics for Zeller, some deal like that. I'd also look to move him for another big like to OKC for Kanter in a sign and trade. We get Kanter they get Hibbert. Hibbert as an expiring would help them resign Durant as opposed to having to give Kanter a whole new deal.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

        Would you like to pay Kanter 12+ mil a year? As OKC is a taxpaying team, he would need to be signed for a minimum of 12,33 Mil to carry out that sign&trade. They would also be looking at a HUGE luxury tax bill as Hibbert would take them past 90 mil in salaries... Get real!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

          I'd love to have Kanter any way we can get him. Guy has star potential.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

            West will not retire. He would have to be crazy to leave 12.6M on the table. If he isn't up to it Vogel will just have to adjust to West coming off the bench or using him for fewer minutes. I don't understand why he would retire given that this has not been a terrible season for him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              West will not retire. He would have to be crazy to leave 12.6M on the table. If he isn't up to it Vogel will just have to adjust to West coming off the bench or using him for fewer minutes. I don't understand why he would retire given that this has not been a terrible season for him.
              I believe he'll opt out, right now I believe that at about 60%+. I think ultimately for this team to be successful next season, Hibbert and West must go. I think grabbing Greg Monroe maybe in free agency, putting Lou and Mo Williams in the back court, or going for low salaried young players like Jeremy Lamb and Harrison Barnes is the way to go.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                But, HOW OFTEN does someone who is not seriously injured REALLY retire leaving 12 mil on table. List me ALL examples you find - is it like 1) no one, 2) nada, 3) still searching...
                Hmmm, does it have to be $12 million? I can think of one obvious example. He wasn't making $12 million but he was well paid for his day. He was 30 years old, healthy and still in his prime. He retired with 3 years left on his contract. Those 3 years totaled more that $12 million. Oh, and many consider him to be the greatest player ever. He retired and took up a whole new sport, baseball. Have you guessed who yet? Last clue, his initials are MJ.

                I tend to believe David West when he says he won't decide till this summer. (He said so in an interview with a New Orleans writer a few weeks ago. I've posted the link before). He's sure been talking about wanting to retire for a long time.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                  Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                  We don't need a MLE for Stuckey. He can be re-signed with Bird rights. And LWill won't be available that low...

                  I actually don't think Jerebko/Lavoy are either/or proposition. They could maybe even work as a PF tandem when we no longer have West. They surely bring different things to the table...

                  Besides, Lavoy doesn't seem reliable (small gas tank?) enough to be the ONLY back-up PF for full season.
                  wintermute or Stummer would have to confirm.....but I thought that someone on the board said that we don't have the Bird Rights to Stuckey. He only signed for a 1 year deal....so he's a UFA next season with no Bird rights. Whereas with Lavoy, cuz he was traded here....we do have the Bird rights to him. Stuckey? No Bird rights.

                  << but someone will have to confirm this >>
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    West will not retire. He would have to be crazy to leave 12.6M on the table. If he isn't up to it Vogel will just have to adjust to West coming off the bench or using him for fewer minutes. I don't understand why he would retire given that this has not been a terrible season for him.
                    You don't have to understand......Grimp is just grimpin.

                    He has been pushing this angle since the summer and have been basing ALL of his god-awful trade proposals and wishlist on the assumption that he'll just retire or opt out.

                    It's very possible that he'll retire or opt out.....but I'm not going to believe it until I hear him say it.

                    And no Grimp, some blurbs here and there saying that he may or may not doesn't cut it while he's still playing and performing at a solid level.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 02-28-2015, 03:10 AM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      wintermute or Stummer would have to confirm.....but I thought that someone on the board said that we don't have the Bird Rights to Stuckey. He only signed for a 1 year deal....so he's a UFA next season with no Bird rights. Whereas with Lavoy, cuz he was traded here....we do have the Bird rights to him. Stuckey? No Bird rights.

                      << but someone will have to confirm this >>
                      As far as I can understand from cbafaq.com, Stuckey is a Non-Bird (a misnomer as it is alson en exception albeit one with least benefits to an original team.

                      However, that exception is not very useful as far as Stuckey goes... It only allows offering 120 % of previous salary. As Rodney will likely be getting better offers from elsewhere, resigning him can indeed only happen thru' using MLE.

                      So, we do have limited Bird-rights, but they are so limited that they likely won't help.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                        if we want Stuckey back we need to use our MLE to do it

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                          if we want Stuckey back we need to use our MLE to do it
                          Are you saying that it will cost $4 to 5 mil to re-sign him?

                          or

                          Is it that because the Pacers don't have his Bird Rights, that we have to use the MLE to re-sign him?

                          I thought that wintermute or Stummer said this in another thread....but PetPaima is saying that we don't need to use the MLE to re-sign him.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            if we want Stuckey back we need to use our MLE to do it
                            I agree in practice, but just want to clarify that this is not the absolute truth. Stuckey has a non-Bird status, which allows us to resign him to a salary maxing at 1 473 582 $/year with that exception without using the MLE.

                            However, every solid showing (which he has a slew of lately) make it more and more certain that he will command a salary above that. And in that case, the only open avenue is indeed using MLE or portion of it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Are you saying that it will cost $4 to 5 mil to re-sign him?

                              or

                              Is it that because the Pacers don't have his Bird Rights, that we have to use the MLE to re-sign him?

                              I thought that wintermute or Stummer said this in another thread....but PetPaima is saying that we don't need to use the MLE to re-sign him.
                              PetPaima got it right. We'll have the non-Bird for Stuckey, which is 120% of his current money... which means it probably won't be enough.

                              We'll also have the biannual exception (roughly $2m), but that also seems unlikely to be enough to re-sign Stuckey. MLE seems to be the likely bet.

                              On topic, there's a rumor that we're pursuing Lithuanian guard Mantas Kalnietis. If true, he's likely to take up the MLE or at least a decent chunk of it. Stuckey is probably better IMO, but maybe Stuckey gets priced out of our range.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Players we should pursue in the off-season

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                PetPaima got it right. We'll have the non-Bird for Stuckey, which is 120% of his current money... which means it probably won't be enough.

                                We'll also have the biannual exception (roughly $2m), but that also seems unlikely to be enough to re-sign Stuckey. MLE seems to be the likely bet.

                                On topic, there's a rumor that we're pursuing Lithuanian guard Mantas Kalnietis. If true, he's likely to take up the MLE or at least a decent chunk of it. Stuckey is probably better IMO, but maybe Stuckey gets priced out of our range.
                                Damnit....sonova......

                                I'm okay with spending the majority of the Full MLE for Stuckey.......maybe some 3 year deal at the majority or ( push comes to shove ) the full MLE.

                                I agree with Grimp , We need some consistent and reliable scoring off the bench. The problem is that I don't see any other Guard that is worth spending the MLE on.....which just means that I'd settle for Stuckey as our 1st Guard off the bench.
                                Last edited by CableKC; 03-03-2015, 12:25 AM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X