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

Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

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

  • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

    Originally posted by ballism View Post
    or they added a year so they could sign him for less per-year.
    Then, as I said, they exceeded the overall value of what he was offered. I have as much of an issue with the 5 years as I do with the per year number. Locking up a role player for 5 years is bad business, IMO. Lock in your core guys and maintain flexibility around them. That is what SAS have done for years and why they were smart enough to let Hill go. And if Hill is part of our core then this team is in big trouble, IMO. Hill should be a complimentary role player. No more.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

      For the record, I'm not suggesting they should have signed him at a higher number. If he was truly offered more than 8 mil per year, as you suggest, then they should have helped him pack his bags and wished him good luck with whatever franchise was dumb enough to make such an offer.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

        Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
        Then, as I said, they exceeded the overall value of what he was offered. I have as much of an issue with the 5 years as I do with the per year number. Locking up a role player for 5 years is bad business, IMO. Lock in your core guys and maintain flexibility around them. That is what SAS have done for years and why they were smart enough to let Hill go. And if Hill is part of our core then this team is in big trouble, IMO. Hill should be a complimentary role player. No more.
        reducing annual salary is one of the ways to maintain flexibility.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

          Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
          Then, as I said, they exceeded the overall value of what he was offered. I have as much of an issue with the 5 years as I do with the per year number. Locking up a role player for 5 years is bad business, IMO. Lock in your core guys and maintain flexibility around them. That is what SAS have done for years and why they were smart enough to let Hill go. And if Hill is part of our core then this team is in big trouble, IMO. Hill should be a complimentary role player. No more.
          i tend to agree with your thinking on the value of Hill. He is a good combo guard. not really a PG but able to play the point.

          But maybe the Front Office sees him differently. Maybe they see him as a guy that can start on a good team. Maybe he is part of the core. If so, locking him up for 5 yrs is a smart idea. He is the ideal player in everything except skill. Works hard, plays hard every night, doesn't care if he starts or not, good in the community, all those intangible things.

          I agree that the silence about the total amount is a sign the amount is higher than we think. or maybe they just don't want anyone else offering an extra $5M or so between now and the 11th.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

            Originally posted by ballism View Post
            reducing annual salary is one of the ways to maintain flexibility.
            I guess we just disagree. I would have thought the Murphleaevy years would have taught the franchise that an extra year matters. IMO it matters more than an extra mil per year savings. You can't seriously believe someone offered GH more than that can you? Oh well, congrats to the Pacers - they've solved there backup PG position for the next 5 years. Now if only they could find a starter......

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

              Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
              I guess we just disagree. I would have thought the Murphleaevy years would have taught the franchise that an extra year matters. IMO it matters more than an extra mil per year savings. You can't seriously believe someone offered GH more than that can you? Oh well, congrats to the Pacers - they've solved there backup PG position for the next 5 years. Now if only they could find a starter......
              is it a good or a bad deal for Hill as a player, that's an entirely different topic. now is Hill as a player worth 5/~38? i don't know. anyway, I think it's way too early to go there yet. we don't even know if the 5th year is guaranteed.

              what i disagree with, it's this post, where you said that the 5th year somehow shows they overpaid compared to the market, or didn't do their research:
              Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
              In large part because he signed for 5 years. So either the Pacers exceeded the market (at least in overall value) or the market was never set.
              it's entirely possible some team called and inquired about 4/32.
              heck, maybe even 3/27. If you are the Cavs or the Bobcats, why wouldn't you do that? You need exactly someone like Hill, your rookies are locked up for another 3 years, you don't need your cap yet, if you can slightly overpay him now and acquire his Bird rights in 3 years, it makes perfect sense.

              if we had to match that, we'd be screwed. Goodbye midlevels in the near future.
              Last edited by ballism; 07-04-2012, 10:12 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                is it a good or a bad deal for Hill as a player, that's an entirely different topic.

                i disagree with this post, where you said that the 5th year somehow means they overpayed compared to the market, or didn't research it.:
                I said then they exceeded the overall value of the contract - unless you believe someone offered GH 4 /40, then the statements accurate. Per year numbers are only part of a consideration for a contract. People keep wanting to offer as many years as possible to try to lower the per year cap hit for Roy and GH. That's a very good way to get into cap hell IMO. Unless the cap savings are significant (they rarely are), IMO, the shorter contract is better. Regardless, I don't believe GH is worth 8 mil per year for 4 or 5 years.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                  Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                  I said then they exceeded the overall value of the contract - unless you believe someone offered GH 4 /40, then the statements accurate.
                  it is accurate in the sense that an extra year = more overall money. but you present it as incompetence by the Pacers, which it does not necessarily mean.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                    Originally posted by ballism View Post
                    it is accurate in the sense that an extra year = more overall money. but you present it as incompetence by the Pacers, which it does not necessarily mean.
                    Look, i disagree with paying GH that much money for that long. And that is regardless of whether or not he received a max offer, no offer, or whatever. There is absolutely no proof that he was offered anything at this point and I certainly can't prove a negative, so whatever. If disagreeing with the FO is equal to stating they are incompetent, then fine. I state my opinion because when we are dying to trade his overpaid *** in 2 years, people can't start telling me it's hindsight when I criticize the deal. And if he earns his money, then i have no problem stating Im wrong. If you want justify the deal because maybe someone could have possibly offered him that much, we just don't know - go ahead.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                      Guesses seem to indicate a '12-'13 salary of around $6.75M, which IMO is not at all unreasonable. He's got everything going for him (young, healthy, versatile, classy)--especially here in Indiana--except star quality, so we want him to be a part of our core whether he's a starter or a 6th man. I think locking him up is a sound decision.


                      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                        Originally posted by ballism View Post
                        among the players who got deals this week were: Landry Fields, Mirza Teletovic, Omer Asik.
                        Not every "priority target" is a superstar. There are many with some room, and only a handful of bigger names, and not everyone is going after them.
                        Teletovic will be the new "Dirk Nowitzki" believe in me, Teletovic has been the best player in Europe more than once, and the best scorer, and is the best 3pt shooter i've seen in Europe

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                          Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                          Look, i disagree with paying GH that much money for that long.
                          i just disagree with your initial statement, which is very different from your current statement.
                          maybe you didn't read into xBulletproof post before you opposed it, i don't know, but I thought it was a fair point so i replied. what you are saying now ("Hill is not good enough") is unrelated to that discussion.

                          now is he good enough, is it a good deal or not, i don't know.
                          and i would say neither of us does. there are many variables:

                          - do we still want to use all cap this summer?
                          if yes, then we can't sign Hill at 8 mil starting salary, it would put us over tax. 6-7 mil, that gives us breathing room.

                          - does he stay healthy? he should still be in his prime in 5 years, but who knows.

                          - what about resigning Tyler, DC, West or using next year's midlevel? Even if we don't use the cap, 1-2 mil could mean significant flexibility for us.

                          That's what FO has to plan for. It's not as simple as "Dunleavy had a long deal, it was bad, lets not give anyone else a long deal".
                          Last edited by ballism; 07-04-2012, 11:24 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            among the players who got deals this week were: Landry Fields, Mirza Teletovic, Omer Asik.
                            Not every "priority target" is a superstar. There are many teams with some room, and only a handful of bigger names, and not everyone is going after them.
                            I didn't say only superstars get signed. I said just about everyone is getting overpaid this week.

                            Now, I don't know anything about Teletovic, but you don't think an average of $6.7m for Fields and $8.3m for Asik isn't overpaying?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                              Originally posted by LucasRL13 View Post
                              Teletovic will be the new "Dirk Nowitzki" believe in me, Teletovic has been the best player in Europe more than once, and the best scorer, and is the best 3pt shooter i've seen in Europe
                              more likely a smaller, lower motor version of Ryan Anderson. i wonder who and why made that decision. he'd be nice next to Dwight, but he seems like a horrific fit next to Lopez.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                I didn't say only superstars get signed. I said just about everyone is getting overpaid this week.

                                Now, I don't know anything about Teletovic, but you don't think an average of $6.7m for Fields and $8.3m for Asik isn't overpaying?
                                sure. my point was --- who's to say that George Hill wasn't someone's "priority target".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X