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

  • #61
    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

    It was 6mil a year but we don't know the salary increase.

    Stock up: Pacers PG George Hill is helping his value. He turned down a $6 million-per-year extension before the season and now might get more this summer as a restricted free agent. The Spurs and Tim Duncan, especially, want him to return to San Antonio, but San Antonio might not be able to afford him. New York Daily News
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      It was 6mil a year but we don't know the salary increase.
      Wait, HE turned it down, the Pacers didn't. How is this one relevant to the discussion that the Pacers could have had him for cheaper mid-season?
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        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?

        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. It was an absolute blunder for not picking up Blatche for $854,389. But hey, Walsh traded 2 players to sign Mahinmi to 4 mil a year on a 4 guaranteed year contract. Walsh is paying 79% more for Mahinmi for less production. Someone tell me again why Walsh was re-hired to run the Pacers?

        I NEVER said I was interested in Jerry Stackhouse, now did I? I just pointed out he contributed to the Nets bench success last night. I'm surprised any team even picked him up this year. He was a benchsitter and towel waiver last season in Atlanta. Personally, I'd rather have a player like the Nets seldom used Marshon Brooks than Stackhouse anyday everyday.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          Why did we turn down GHill's $7 million offer mid season last year if we were to simply hand him an immediate $8 million when summer negotiations started?


          DARN GOOD QUESTION!

          Maybe Checkbook Donnie thought Hill needed a little extra spending money.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            Wait, HE turned it down, the Pacers didn't. How is this one relevant to the discussion that the Pacers could have had him for cheaper mid-season?
            I thought it was important to know how much he turned down.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              I thought it was important to know how much he turned down.
              OK. Were you able to find anything on the deal the Pacers supposedly turned down?
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                OK. Were you able to find anything on the deal the Pacers supposedly turned down?
                I think that was it, the Pacers offered him 6mil a year he turned down and they moved on, maybe there was another offer? I don't know.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  DARN GOOD QUESTION!

                  Maybe Checkbook Donnie thought Hill needed a little extra spending money.

                  Not really if you just look at each situation within the proper time frame. When we were negotiating with him during the season it was as a back-up. When we were negotiating with him in the offseason it was as a starter. He had a lot more leverage in the offseason than during the season.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    I think that was it, the Pacers offered him 6mil a year he turned down and they moved on, maybe there was another offer? I don't know.
                    Some of the comments here are springboarding off the idea that he offered to accept either $7M or $7.5M and the Pacers turned it down. Starting negotiating at $6M and ending at $8M isn't nearly as insane as having the chance to buy for $7M and then buying at $8M would have been.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                      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.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Some of the comments here are springboarding off the idea that he offered to accept either $7M or $7.5M and the Pacers turned it down. Starting negotiating at $6M and ending at $8M isn't nearly as insane as having the chance to buy for $7M and then buying at $8M would have been.
                        I haven't found anything anywhere that says the Pacers turned down an offer at a $7.5M extension. All that happened was Indiana offered a $6M extension, which was turned down by Hill/his agent.

                        Indiana never had the chance to sign George for $7.5M

                        I'm not sure how that ever got started.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                          Originally posted by Derek2k3 View Post
                          I haven't found anything anywhere that says the Pacers turned down an offer at a $7.5M extension. All that happened was Indiana offered a $6M extension, which was turned down by Hill/his agent.

                          Indiana never had the chance to sign George for $7.5M

                          I'm not sure how that ever got started.

                          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.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                            I'll take it for now. We need more guys like him badly on our team.

                            Like I said before, David West and George Hill are the only two players who don't look like they're wetting the bed when the going gets tough. Everyone else looks scared, I feel like its because they come from other successful teams
                            //

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              And you know that because? even Lou had some good games once in a while, for example 21 points and 8 rebounds against Portland last year, or 11 and 10 against New Orleans, one game doesn't make the 4mil a year for the next 4 years to Ian a good deal and one game doesn't make him a good player either.
                              Simply because Lou wouldn't make 7 out of his 10 FTs. Having your back-up big shoot 70% from the line is a big commodity.

                              Yes, Lou had some great games and for all I know he could play great against LA if he was brought back (and mind you, I was not against bringing back Lou, I still love the guy) but there's no way that he would go 7 - 10 from the line. And without that 7 - 10 we're not winning this game. Plain and simple.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                I got to watch Ian a lot in Dallas and he looks like the same guy to me, yes he was good in pre-season but it was pre-season....
                                How a player looks to you (or anyone) and how a player plays according to the stats are two different things.
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X