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

George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

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

  • #31
    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    The Pacers would still have had to match the terms of the contract--it's not about whether they could or not. With Hibbert and George's contract's rising, my argument was merely that they would not have been able to afford a poison pill-structured contract, given future cap considerations.
    In Hill's situation, there was no worry about a poison pill contract. Other teams would not have been allowed to give him such a contract. It violates cap rules. The contract wouldn't have to be flat like the Pacers gave him, but there are strict rules on how much the contract can be raised or lowered from year 1. What happened in the Lin/Asik situation could not have happened to the Pacers and Hill.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      I was a guy that wanted Hill since the day he was drafted by San Antonio(yes I was looking at the "green grass") I was also happy when they made the trade for him, I really like what he brings to the Pacers and with all that said I think the Pacers overpay for him a bit.

      I would also like to say that Hill's overpaying is the less worse of the Pacers overpaying problems this off season, Ian, Green and Roy are the contracts people should complain about because they are just horrible.
      I agree with all of them except Roy. His contract is the going market for what he is worth he is an all star center and you can't take that away from him regardless of how he comes back and plays.
      Protect the Promise!!!!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

        He's been a solid PG. He's racking up more assists and has become a better leader at the point. He's kept the offensive flow moving.

        In comparison to Collison and when he was here starting, Hill is the more trustworthy starting PG.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
          fact is you don't know if there was competition for him, you are assuming that there was no competition for him, the Rockets signed Omer Asik for over 8 mil a year, you can't tell me that you know for sure no team offered Hill, because you don't know.

          You act like it was a top secret that another team was interested in Hill, and no one knew anything about it! This is the NBA where rumors galore abide. The NBA isn't the CIA where secrets abound.

          The point is Walsh was bidding against himself. Hill was a RFA which gave Walsh a chance to match an offer sheet from another team. "NO" NBA team signed Hill to an offer sheet. There is a reason for that. No other teams were interested. IIRC, Hill turned down an offer from Bird previously. The number 7 mil seems to stick in my mind. Other teams weren't interested in Hill at that type of money. Checkbook Donnie rushed in bid against himself, and overpaid Hill when there was no reason to do so. That's why Hill is overpaid. If Hill had stayed in San Antonio, do you truly think RC Buford would have given Hill anything close to a 5 year 40 mil contract?? If you do, then I have some ocean front property down in Brown county I'd like to sell you.

          I felt all long, and I'm on record saying I felt Hill was worth between 4.5 and 5.5 mil. 6 mil wouldn't have been too much, but "8" mil was just plain overpaying. Thank you Mr. Walsh!

          Let's compare Hill with another home state player.... Mike Conley. Both are PG's and Conley makes a little less salary this year. Conley is a TRUE PG, where as Hill isn't. Conley is averaging 15 PPG on 50% FG, 43% 3pt, 81.6% FT. Conley averages 6.5 Ast with a 2-1 Ast/TO ratio. Conley is a better PG and makes his team mates better players. There is no doubt which is the better bargain or means more to their respective team as their PG, and it sure isn't George Hill.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            I believe you can say that about a lot of players in the team, specially all the new contracts.
            You could also say the opposite about the players we let go, though
            Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
            Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

            Panopticon

            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post



              I would also like to say that Hill's overpaying is the less worse of the Pacers overpaying problems this off season, Ian, Green and Roy are the contracts people should complain about because they are just horrible.

              The salary isn't the issue it's the 3 & 4 year guaranteed contracts that are the problem.

              I was checking the daily scores this morning when I noticed a team winning a game with their bench scoring 55% of their points, over half the rebs, and 2 of the reserve/bench players making $854,389 in salary while combining for 34 pts and 14 rebs. What the shame is the Pacers could have had one of those players, and wouldn't have had to trade for Mahinmi. That bench/reserve player is averaging 9.5/5.5 in 17 MPG for $854,389. Now that's a travesity!
              Last edited by Justin Tyme; 11-29-2012, 12:56 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I believe you can say that about a lot of players in the team, specially all the new contracts.
                Shut, you can say that about most of the players in the NBA, NBA contracts are in a large part built on potential, production is key as well, but how else do you explain a lot of these contracts being given out. We didn't overpay for Hill, for Hibbert, now that is a different story, but really in this market what are you to do.

                Hill is still young enough and is getting better in the PG role, I think he fits well with this team, and really has seemed like a leader.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  The salary isn't the issue it's the 3 & 4 year guaranteed contracts that are the problem.

                  I was checking the daily scores this morning when I noticed a team winning a game with their bench scoring 55% of their points, over half the rebs, and 2 of the reserve/bench players making $854,389 in salary while combining for 34 pts and 14 rebs. What the shame is the Pacers could have had one of those players, and wouldn't have had to trade for Mahinmi. That bench/reserve player is averaging 9.5/5.5 in 17 MPG for $854,389. Now that's a travesity!
                  I agree, there are many players for less than 1mil a year doing better things than Ian and Green, overpaying for those two was a huge mistake.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    You act like it was a top secret that another team was interested in Hill, and no one knew anything about it! This is the NBA where rumors galore abide. The NBA isn't the CIA where secrets abound.

                    The point is Walsh was bidding against himself. Hill was a RFA which gave Walsh a chance to match an offer sheet from another team. "NO" NBA team signed Hill to an offer sheet. There is a reason for that. No other teams were interested. IIRC, Hill turned down an offer from Bird previously. The number 7 mil seems to stick in my mind. Other teams weren't interested in Hill at that type of money. Checkbook Donnie rushed in bid against himself, and overpaid Hill when there was no reason to do so. That's why Hill is overpaid. If Hill had stayed in San Antonio, do you truly think RC Buford would have given Hill anything close to a 5 year 40 mil contract?? If you do, then I have some ocean front property down in Brown county I'd like to sell you.

                    I felt all long, and I'm on record saying I felt Hill was worth between 4.5 and 5.5 mil. 6 mil wouldn't have been too much, but "8" mil was just plain overpaying. Thank you Mr. Walsh!

                    Let's compare Hill with another home state player.... Mike Conley. Both are PG's and Conley makes a little less salary this year. Conley is a TRUE PG, where as Hill isn't. Conley is averaging 15 PPG on 50% FG, 43% 3pt, 81.6% FT. Conley averages 6.5 Ast with a 2-1 Ast/TO ratio. Conley is a better PG and makes his team mates better players. There is no doubt which is the better bargain or means more to their respective team as their PG, and it sure isn't George Hill.
                    Conley's salary THIS year is lower, but he is actually being paid 5 million more over the life of the contract. Also, Conley has been playing for the same team, with the same starting 5 for 3 years now. Chemistry and familiarity has as much to do with his numbers as his talent. Why do I say that? Because just last year he averaged 13 and 6, and before that 14 and 6 with respectable shooting %'s. (44% and 37% from 3) The bump in scoring has to do with the fact that he's shooting 50% from the field and 43% from 3, who knows if he'll be able to keep up with that pace, but his career says that he wont.

                    Meanwhile this is Hill's first full year of being a PG, and his first full year as a starter for a Pacer team that is missing their best player, and has made a bunch of changes to their bench. He is coming off an injury in pre-season, and is easily having the WORST stretch of shooting within his career (normally 44% from the field and 37% from 3--the exact SAME as Conley).

                    So bottom line, with Conley shooting the best he has throughout his career, and Hill shooting the worst within his career, the difference in points is a mere .9ppg and assists is 1.1apg. When you take into account the other factors (Hill's clutch ability, Hill coming off an injury, missing his team's best player, Hill being a first time starter, etc) I think it's clear that the numbers you spoke of for Conley are definitely not worth the EXTRA 5 million dollars throughout the life of the contract.

                    So if you want to use Mike Conley as an example, then no, George Hill isnt overpaid.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                      I was checking the daily scores this morning when I noticed a team winning a game with their bench scoring 55% of their points, over half the rebs, and 2 of the reserve/bench players making $854,389 in salary while combining for 34 pts and 14 rebs. What the shame is the Pacers could have had one of those players, and wouldn't have had to trade for Mahinmi. That bench/reserve player is averaging 9.5/5.5 in 17 MPG for $854,389. Now that's a travesity!
                      Blatche was a risk, wouldn't you agree? Some risks pay off but not all of them do. Would you prefer the Pacers to take a risk on Blatche and thus having no back-up C if it didn't work out?

                      PS: Or would you prefer us to bring the 38 year-old Stackhouse instead of Gerald Green?
                      Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                      Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                      Panopticon

                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                        George Hill is not overpaid, he is a baller who is keeping this team afloat right now and he is not anywhere near 100%.
                        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I agree, there are many players for less than 1mil a year doing better things than Ian and Green, overpaying for those two was a huge mistake.
                          So early in the year, if they can get back to how they played during the preseason they will look like bargains again.
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                            The reason why I think George Hill was overpay is because the marked was full of point guards, Hinrich,Watson,DJ,Felton, Fishers, Dwill, Dragic,etc, how many teams are really going to overpay for Hill? I think the Pacers had a chance to get a discount by letting the market set up his price and they screwed up.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                              Originally posted by Really? View Post
                              So early in the year, if they can get back to how they played during the preseason they will look like bargains again.
                              They are not playing like they played in pre-season, they are playing how they have been playing for a big part of their careers during the regular season, Green and Mahinmi have been end of the bench players and in Green's case he was out of the NBA for a reason, they are just not that good.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Green and Mahinmi have been end of the bench players and in Green's case he was out of the NBA for a reason, they are just not that good.
                                So, a "not that good" and "end of the bench" player was the reason we beat the Lakers?

                                'Cause replace Ian with Lou (and I still love Lou, by the way) and we would have lost in LA.
                                Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                                Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

                                Panopticon

                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X