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

Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

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

  • Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

    Rate the Season:

    Solomon Hill




    I do not want these threads to be debate threads. Place your vote, state your opinion on the player, chat about the players season, but keep things civil and constructive.


    The scale was devised trying to make things more directly relate to how players are actually used. So if you think a player played like a 6th man quality player you should vote for 6th man. If you think he played to the quality of a hall of famer you vote for hall of famer.
    68
    Hall of Fame
    0.00%
    0
    MVP
    0.00%
    0
    All-NBA
    0.00%
    0
    All-Star
    0.00%
    0
    Star
    0.00%
    0
    Starter
    8.82%
    6
    6th Man
    13.24%
    9
    Bench/Role Player
    54.41%
    37
    Potential
    20.59%
    14
    Do Not Want Back
    0.00%
    0
    Please Retire
    2.94%
    2
    Last edited by Eleazar; 04-22-2015, 11:51 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

    He wasn't very good in the few games I saw.

    I'd say a D. This was a year to prove something. This guy wasn't just a 1 and done. He should be more ready and I just don't think he rose to the challenge. I hope he works on his 3pt shot. If he becomes a 3&D, then he's set in the NBA for a long time. If not, then he'll be out of the league after his rookie contract.
    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

      I am a fan of Hill. He is young, he is cheap and he just got his first real season in! He had some stretches where I felt that he has big potential, cause he has the ability to get to the rim, he just needs to hit his shots in traffic better! I know that there were also stretches where he was invisible, but I think he is way better than guys like Brandon Rush and has wayyy more potential. He is also a good defender and that's why I really like Hill!!! He is the guy with the most room to improve and I look forward to see him again next year, either as a silent starter, who plays the Lance Stephenson role of the 2012/2013 season or as a 6th man 3 and D guy with the ability to attack the rim!

      Edit: He had no injuries and that was a BIG plus this year!
      Last edited by InYaFace; 04-20-2015, 02:26 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

        I agree InYaFace. I think he shows potential, not as much as Brandon Rush, but I also think he is already better than Rush. I think if he is what he is he is already a solid bench player.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

          Nice progress - he's certainly a rotation player/ sixth man going forward. And there was no reason to expect that after his non-existent rookie season.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

            I guess I'll be the first guy to go in HARD on Solo.

            Hated what I saw from him in the preseason. Loved what I saw in November and December and then hated pretty much everything I saw from January to the end of the year except maybe a slightly more confident three point shoot.

            Look I get he was basically a rookie so take all of this with a pound of salt I guess, but I don't like his attitude.

            1.) Complains about the D-League his rookie year.
            2.) I know he complained about the way his role changed when GHill, Stuck, and Miles all got healthy at about the same time in December. Didn't do it publicly, but I know he was unhappy about it.
            3.) The article about Paul being "far away" from returning according to a Pacers player...he's your man on that front too I'm 90% sure.

            There are things I like about Solo. He's a great ball handler for his size and attacks the rim hard, but not with any consistency. If he's not trying to dunk, he struggles to finish some basic layups. His decision making was spotty at best and at times downright horrific.

            Defensively he had his moments, can play some on ball defense well but often got lost off the ball.

            By the end of the year, specifically the last 2 games, I was honestly wishing Damo was getting some of his minutes....so yeah.

            Again he's young, but Solo is frustrating to me. I think he needs to change his attitude a bit. I'm not willing to rate him even as a sixth man. From an efficiency standpoint, he was as bad as Lance was in Charlotte this year.

            He gets bench/role player rating for me right now and I'm a little bit concerned about how much potential is actually there.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

              I still like him a lot. Even when I was over-excited about him back in early December, I never suggested he would be anything close to an allstar. I still like a lot of things about him. And no I don't give a hoot about what he said or didn't say about the D-League

              I have more to say about him, but don['t have time now

              I think he is a keeper

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                I voted potential because I think he has potential to be a very solid starter in the NBA. Unfortunately we have a backlog of wings and I think Bird wants to get Damo into the rotation. Because of that, I think Solo will be used as a trading chip in order to move Hibbert.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                  The potential is there. He improved drastically on the defensive side of things and I considered him to be our best on-ball wing defender this year. His three point percentage got better as the season progressed and I like that he's a humble guy.

                  He just needs to FINISH AT THE RIM! If he could get that down, I think every fan is going to love this guy and what he brings in the future. So many of those close misses were frustrating, but he was basically a rookie out there for all intensive purposes. Finishing is something that can definitely be fixed and if he does that, he can potentially turn into a solid starter or a key player off the bench.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                    He has the ability to be a good defender, but I don't ever see him being a great offensive player or shooter and that's a big need for the Pacers at this point.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                      Solo had a predictable up/down year. It was essentially his first year, and he had a lot thrown at him in terms of his role expanding, then changing. I know Joe mentioned Hill's attitude, and I honestly think he's just an extremely competitive guy. He wants to play, and when he does, he plays hard.

                      He's not the most talented guy. But he's physical, and gets after it. I think he could stand to work on his body a bit more.

                      If we do end up playing some small ball, I could see Solo being utilized as a poor mans Draymond Green. He doesn't have Green's wingspan (about 4 n shorter) but Solo is more athletic and they're similarly sized. Solo also played some undersized PF in college. I think Green is the type of guy Solo should patteern himself after. He's not as talented, but could be a similar player IMO.

                      Edit: another similar guy is Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
                      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 04-20-2015, 06:32 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                        I see Solo as a rotation player off the bench and 8th or 9th player type. He can hit the corner 3 and when inclinded can take it to the basket hard. His shooting is subpar overall at this point. But for a late 1st rounder he is a good player. Not a starter but a good lower end rotation player.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                          Looks like a starter to me, BUT only on this team, or another team that can let him be the 4th/5th guy. I like his defense, I like his size, and he has some basic offensive abilities that I think he can develop a little more. I'd like to see Hill/Hill/George on the wings. Think that'd be a tough team to deal with.

                          That said there have been a couple red flags attitude-wise, but unless it gets any worse I still like him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                            At this point I feel he's the less talented guard version of Roy. Can't finish, can't shoot, has a poor attitude but his saving grace is defense. He wishes he was as good as Brandon Rush was for us (Seriously, think about this. Our expectations of Rush were way higher than this guy). The guy's game is a dime a dozen.

                            With that said, I hope he proves me wrong. And he can. Role player this year. Maybe in a couple of years he can be a 6th man type of guy. But I feel like it probably won't be for the Pacers.
                            "man, PG has been really good."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rate the Season: Soloman Hill

                              Yea, this was his first year with real playing time. I think he will improve his shooting in the off season. Not saying he will become Curry but it should get better. I like his aggressive playing style. Hope he starts at the 2 with PG

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X