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

  • #76
    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    http://www.pacersdigest.com/archive/...p/t-69168.html

    I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.
    Ah, thanks.

    Although, again, this isn't anything solid. What I get from that is that Indiana wanted a deal, when they couldn't get it they decided it was worth dealing with once they knew what it was going to take to get Roy. $7.5M to $8M isn't a big deal to these guys, I guess. (I'll take that extra little $500,000/year, if they want.)

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      Blatche needed to get out of Washington... PERIOD! The culture there was detrimental to him. I've wanted Blatche, since he was a RFA. Unfortunately, the Pacers still had David Harrison, so there was no reason to get Blatche. We all know how that turned out! Some cities/teams aren't good for players. Good example was Portland for Z-Bo. You could make a case for Tinsley and Indy/Pacers as well. I wince everytime I see the Tinjury ast # in the daily box scores.

      I've heard all the stories about Blatche same as I heard all the stories about Z-Bo. Different teams can change a player. Not to mention Blatche is on a ONE YEAR contract like Augustin. I'll bet the ole family farm that Blatche produces more on his one year contract than Augustin does. Any takers? I thought not!

      Blatche is an ABSOLUTE STEAL at $854,389. He can play both the 4 & 5, and produce. He's not up in age like both JO and Rasheed who are producing on $854,389 contracts.
      And I absolutely agree with this.

      Yes, Blatche needed to get out of Washington. Yes, he need a change of culture. All of this is true.

      But are you sure that he would be able to produce this good here?

      Personally, I don't think so. The situation in Brooklyn is better. Wanna know why?

      1) Lower expectations in Brooklyn. Simply put, people expected Indiana to be a top 3 team since last year set the expectations so high. Brooklyn was expected to need some time to gel.

      2) The new stadium and the relocation from New Jersey to Brooklyn acts as a morale booster for the Nets players.

      3) The news of Granger's injury a day before the first game of the season act as a morale sapper for the Pacers players.

      I think that if he came here he would be caught up in our slow start and our horrible offense and wouldn't look all that sexy.

      However, I do agree that for the amount of money he gets he would be a steal anyway.
      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


      • #78
        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

        Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
        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.
        Of course, structured increases. Forgot about those. Thanks.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          I love the idea that has arisen on PD that Donnie Walsh is the only GM in the history of the NBA who has ever overspent on a player. Just too funny. Let's look at the teams just in our own division who have overspent:

          Bulls: Boozer, and now Taj Gibson.

          Bucks: How about 5 year/32 million on Drew freaking Gooden in 2010? They decided to take on Beno Udrih's crazy contract too.

          Pistons: Charlie Villanueva. Ben Gordon. Enough said.

          Cavaliers: Remember when they paid Larry Hughes all the money in the world after they lost out on Michael Redd? Right now though, their contracts are pretty good. Only team in our division that hasn't gone crazy, but that is mostly because of what happened with the decision.

          The lesson here? Every team makes bad contracts. Every GM has made a bad deal at some point. MOST GMS in the NBA have a history of overspending. Welcome to the league we live in and have fostered.
          And our "bad" contract is George Hill..

          Personally, I love George Hill the player. I don't love George Hill the point guard. But I'd honestly rather have him play the point than not have him.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

            Roy Hibbert is our bad contract, not George Hill.

            For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              http://www.pacersdigest.com/archive/...p/t-69168.html

              I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.
              We may be talking apples and oranges here. If the $6M and $7.5M were only the starting salaries, the contracts would be worth $34.5M and $43.25M over the 5 years.

              A contract with a starting salary of $6M and 7.5% raises [$450K] would be $6M, $6.45M, $6.9M, $7.35M and $7.8M for a total of $34.5M over the full five years.

              A contract with a starting salary of $7.5M and 7.5% raises [$562.5K] would be $7.5M, $8.0625, $8.625, $9.1875 and $9.75. For a total of $43.25M over 5 years.

              Looking at those numbers, it seems likely the Pacers and George Hill compromised at $40M/5yrs instead of the $34.5 the Pacers offered and the $43 that Hill wanted. FWIW, the $40M/5yrs comes out to a starting salary of just under $7M with normal raises. Converting to a straight salary just made the contract easier to fit into the salary scale in the end years when the Pacers are trying to fit Paul, Danny and David into the salary cap while paying Roy's salary.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                Roy Hibbert is our bad contract, not George Hill.

                For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?
                Even Hibbert isn't a bad contract, how many teams have a defensive presence in the middle as good as Hibbert? 3 maybe 4 teams. Is he earning his contract no, but it is far from bad. If he would just stop pulling up short on the hook shot, which he consistently made in the past, no one would have a complaint about him.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                  Much like DC before him, George Hill is the Pacers starting PG so he's going to receive hate no matter WHAT he does.
                  And this is coming from a DC hater...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    Even Hibbert isn't a bad contract, how many teams have a defensive presence in the middle as good as Hibbert? 3 maybe 4 teams. Is he earning his contract no, but it is far from bad. If he would just stop pulling up short on the hook shot, which he consistently made in the past, no one would have a complaint about him.
                    Thats what I meant. So far Hibbert's not earning his $. He needs to play at least as well as last year offensively to earn that contract. Hill hasn't played great, but he's been nowhere near as bad as Roy.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                      Thats what I meant. So far Hibbert's not earning his $. He needs to play at least as well as last year offensively to earn that contract. Hill hasn't played great, but he's been nowhere near as bad as Roy.
                      There is a difference between being overpaid and bad. Most people knew Hibbert was going to be overpaid with this new contract, it was just a matter of was it better to overpay and have him, or not overpay and not have him. Since Hibbert is a rare commodity it was better to overpay.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        And I absolutely agree with this.

                        Yes, Blatche needed to get out of Washington. Yes, he need a change of culture. All of this is true.

                        But are you sure that he would be able to produce this good here?

                        Personally, I don't think so. The situation in Brooklyn is better. Wanna know why?

                        1) Lower expectations in Brooklyn. Simply put, people expected Indiana to be a top 3 team since last year set the expectations so high. Brooklyn was expected to need some time to gel.

                        2) The new stadium and the relocation from New Jersey to Brooklyn acts as a morale booster for the Nets players.

                        3) The news of Granger's injury a day before the first game of the season act as a morale sapper for the Pacers players.

                        I think that if he came here he would be caught up in our slow start and our horrible offense and wouldn't look all that sexy.

                        However, I do agree that for the amount of money he gets he would be a steal anyway.

                        I'm confident that Blatche would be producing at the same rate that he's producing now or even better as a Pacer as he'd be getting more minutes of playing time.

                        He also would be playing for a possible starters spot if the Pacers shouldn't re-sign DWest. That and playing for a new contract should make him produce more as a Pacer than as a Net.

                        Anyway you cut it, slice it, or dice it Blatche is a steal this year at 79% less than Mahinmi!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          I'm confident that Blatche would be producing at the same rate that he's producing now or even better as a Pacer as he'd be getting more minutes of playing time.

                          He also would be playing for a possible starters spot if the Pacers shouldn't re-sign DWest. That and playing for a new contract should make him produce more as a Pacer than as a Net.

                          Anyway you cut it, slice it, or dice it Blatche is a steal this year at 79% less than Mahinmi!
                          I agree that he is a steal at this price.

                          I'm just not sure if he would be motivated enough to produce here or he'd give us his Washington production.

                          That's what I mean by saying that it was a risk. Of course, we could take a risk on Blatche and then bring back Fes (for example) and thus even if the Blatche risk failed we would still have a back-up C.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                            Roy Hibbert is our bad contract, not George Hill.

                            For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?


                            IMO, Hill is being overpaid by 2-2.5 mil.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Much like DC before him, George Hill is the Pacers starting PG so he's going to receive hate no matter WHAT he does.
                              And this is coming from a DC hater...

                              Hate/hater is so over used. If someone disagrees with others, they are a hater. Easy label to slap on someone who disagrees. It's part of todays culture to label others a hater when they don't agree with your view or opinion.

                              I have NEVER missed voting in an election, since I was old enough to vote. Some don't or won't take the time to vote, but b/c I do "does it mean that those I vote against I hate? No, it just means I feel someone else is better qualified for whatever reason or reasons.

                              My feeling that Hill was overpaid by Walsh doesn't mean I hate or dislike George Hill the BB player. It means I feel Walsh dropped the ball and overpaid Hill when it wasn't necessary. It means I don't feel Hill is a "8 MILLION DOLLAR MAN". It doesn't mean I feel Hill isn't worthy of being a Pacer, but that I feel Hill got overpaid. NO ONE hopes George Hill produces to make that 8 mil contract one that isn't an overpaid contract more than I DO!

                              Again, hate/hater is nothing more than a label to put on someone that doesn't agree with your views/opinions. It seems some try to use those words to make others shy away from expressing their opinions. If it's not a popular opinion, then it has to be hate or expressed by a hater. In the 50's, when others expressed different opinions the label of Pinkie or Communist was applied to make them fall in line with the popular thinking people.

                              Bottom line is that those that express their opinions no matter how vehemently IS NOT HATE NOR ARE THEY HATERS!

                              Thank you for your time and now back to the regular program.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                I agree that he is a steal at this price.

                                I'm just not sure if he would be motivated enough to produce here or he'd give us his Washington production.

                                That's what I mean by saying that it was a risk. Of course, we could take a risk on Blatche and then bring back Fes (for example) and thus even if the Blatche risk failed we would still have a back-up C.

                                $854,389 is nothing more than peanuts for the risk. Augustin is on a 1 year contract for more, and the risk of that contract isn't looking so bright at the present time. I must commend the Nets for taking the risk. It will pay dividends for them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X