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

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

    I honestly feel like some people haven't looked much into what players not on the Pacers get paid.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      Sorry, but loyalty works 2 ways. Where was Hibbert's loyalty to the Pacers? His loyalty was only to himself and his pocketbook with his "it's all about me attitude." I'm not asking Hibbert to re-sign for peanuts, but what he insisted on being paid is too much for him. He's not that quality of player for the money he's being paid.

      Again, I can't believe Portland isn't smiling that the Pacers matched their offer. Personally, I feel they have a nice rookie in Meyers Leonard at Center for the future. Hibbert's overpaid contract makes him near impossible to trade with his play. Hopefully, he'll get his game together along with some mental toughness to make his contract a good one.
      I wouldn't bother if I were you. The things they come up with to defend Hibbert says enough for me. And always it's his environment that causes most of it, never Roy.

      Portland did us a favor by offering him that contract.
      Hibbert is struggling because our spacing isn't any good.
      Roy going to sign a contract with Portland isn't his wish, it's Portlands wish and he had to accept it because that is how FA works.

      Like you said, it works both ways. Some players take a paycut to play somewhere, for the sake of the team, and it's a fact Hibbert isn't one of them. I'm not saying there aren't any influencing factors from outside, but for me it's 50-50 until proven otherwise. Portland offered the max and Roy accepted their offer. No need to sugarcoat it EDIT and say stuff like technically he didn't take the max. They just call it the max to feed the haters.
      Last edited by MvPlumlee; 12-03-2012, 07:52 AM.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
        Some players take a paycut to play somewhere, for the sake of the team
        Outside of vets who have already made their big money, can you name a few?

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
          Outside of vets who have already made their big money, can you name a few?
          I'm thinking about all players that didn't need a third party to come to an agreement. Of course, it's an unknown what they might have gotten if they would have.
          I mean players like Granger, Horford... We don't know if they could have gotten more per year but it was possible.
          Isn't that beneficial for the team? More money to spend every year and at least one year more committed to the team? Or 2 with Roy's PO.

          That's why I don't have any problem with the George Hill deal. Our front office feared that yet another FO would dictate the terms of the contract of one our players and they prevented that with giving Hill a bit too pricey contract and George accepted it. It's easy to say of course he accepted it, overpaying him like that, but at least he and the team could work out a deal that seems good for him and good for our team (according to our FO). Hibbert got himself a deal that benefits him the most and not so much the team (according to our FO).

          It's ok to disagree with that, everyone values players differently, but I would much rather have Roy to have the balls to be tough on the court than him to be tough in contract negotations. (Or tough enough to stand up against his agent). He could have said Paul Allen wants to pay me this much, I want close to it, but I'm willing to take a small paycut or drop the PO, or spread it over 5 years. Nope, it had to be what he got from the Trailblazers.

          With the help of his agent tough enough to impose his will to Donnie and Kevin, but Baby Davis, Ronny Turiaf or Joel Anthony? No, not tough enough for that.
          Last edited by MvPlumlee; 12-03-2012, 08:00 AM.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post

            Portland did us a favor by offering him that contract.

            Hibbert is struggling because our spacing isn't any good.
            Roy going to sign a contract with Portland isn't his wish, it's Portlands wish and he had to accept it because that is how FA works.

            Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I don't understand how Portland did us a favor.

            If signing a contract with Portland wasn't Hibbert's wish, whose wish was it? There is absolutely nothing that says a player HAS to sign an offer sheet when one is offered. I'll take the Devil's Advocate stance and lets say there truly was another team who was interested in Hibbert. Team B wanted to sign Hibbert, but wasn't offering a max contract b/c they didn't feel he was worth a max. They offered him an offer sheet 1st. Just b/c team B offered Hibbert a contract doesn't mean he has to accept it. Portland offered a better contract, so he took it instead of Team B's offer.

            I'll go on record like I did with Granger, and say Hibbert will never be an Allstar again. I'd love to be wrong, but truthfully I highly doubt I will be.


            Edit: I'm also on record saying O'Brien will never be a head coach in the NBA again too.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
              I mean players like Granger, Horford... We don't know if they could have gotten more per year but it was possible.
              They took what they thought they could get. If they thought they could get Roy money, they would have.

              That's why I don't have any problem with the George Hill deal. Our front office feared that yet another FO would dictate the terms of the contract of one our players and they prevented that with giving Hill a bit too pricey contract and George accepted it. It's easy to say of course he accepted it, overpaying him like that, but at least he and the team could work out a deal that seems good for him and good for our team (according to our FO). Hibbert got himself a deal that benefits him the most and not so much the team (according to our FO).
              So your problem is with the concept of restricted free agency? All your examples of good guys have signed extensions.

              It's ok to disagree with that, everyone values players differently, but I would much rather have Roy to have the balls to be tough on the court than him to be tough in contract negotations. (Or tough enough to stand up against his agent). He could have said Paul Allen wants to pay me this much, I want close to it, but I'm willing to take a small paycut or drop the PO, or spread it over 5 years. Nope, it had to be what he got from the Trailblazers.
              So you wanted Roy to do three things:

              -Take a pay cut. How much? A million? Two million?
              -Drop the PO. And do what, make it a team option? I highly doubt the PO comes to matter at all.
              -Spread his contract from 4 years to 5 (???) No one in their right mind would do this, in any field. This shows me that you're not talking about this rationally and you're just looking for a reason to hate.

              Comment


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

                I don't see how Portland did us a favor, either. Up until they offered him that max, I still thought there was a chance he would cost less. It was disheartening to see how wrong I was, and so quickly, once free agency began. I thought Roy would make between $11m-$13m per year on average. Nope. He got $14.5m per on average.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                  I don't see how Portland did us a favor, either. Up until they offered him that max, I still thought there was a chance he would cost less. It was disheartening to see how wrong I was, and so quickly, once free agency began. I thought Roy would make between $11m-$13m per year on average. Nope. He got $14.5m per on average.
                  Big men are the most popular positions to overpay. When it works out they are often the most important player on the floor, and their impact far exceeds their stats. The problem is, most of the time the player can't live up to the artificially inflated salary, because the salary is based on what could be instead of what is. Could Hibbert live up to 14.5 on average, sure, but most likely he will only live up to about 12 on average.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I don't understand how Portland did us a favor.

                    If signing a contract with Portland wasn't Hibbert's wish, whose wish was it? There is absolutely nothing that says a player HAS to sign an offer sheet when one is offered. I'll take the Devil's Advocate stance and lets say there truly was another team who was interested in Hibbert. Team B wanted to sign Hibbert, but wasn't offering a max contract b/c they didn't feel he was worth a max. They offered him an offer sheet 1st. Just b/c team B offered Hibbert a contract doesn't mean he has to accept it. Portland offered a better contract, so he took it instead of Team B's offer.

                    I'll go on record like I did with Granger, and say Hibbert will never be an Allstar again. I'd love to be wrong, but truthfully I highly doubt I will be.


                    Edit: I'm also on record saying O'Brien will never be a head coach in the NBA again too.
                    Those are examples of other peoples words my friend, not mine

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                      It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.
                      Yes it does matter, there is a reason why I have arguments with people that throws bs information around to confuse those that don't know the facts, the more facts and true information we have the better this site if going to be, the more bs and false information we have the more closer this site is to become the next bleacherreport.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        They took what they thought they could get. If they thought they could get Roy money, they would have.



                        So your problem is with the concept of restricted free agency? All your examples of good guys have signed extensions.



                        So you wanted Roy to do three things:

                        -Take a pay cut. How much? A million? Two million?
                        -Drop the PO. And do what, make it a team option? I highly doubt the PO comes to matter at all.
                        -Spread his contract from 4 years to 5 (???) No one in their right mind would do this, in any field. This shows me that you're not talking about this rationally and you're just looking for a reason to hate.
                        Yes, I hate/don't like Hibbert and his deal. I have no problem admitting that. Hate/not liking makes you irrational.

                        So does love/liking.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Yes it does matter, there is a reason why I have arguments with people that throws bs information around to confuse those that don't know the facts, the more facts and true information we have the better this site if going to be, the more bs and false information we have the more closer this site is to become the next bleacherreport.
                          Understood, but he meant it doesn't matter if the second team was false or not in terms of what Roy was going to get paid once Portland made their max contract offer.
                          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


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

                            Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
                            Yes, I hate/don't like Hibbert and his deal. I have no problem admitting that. Hate/not liking makes you irrational.

                            So does love/liking.
                            Just an observation. I think you're posing what is called a false equivalency. [someone please correct me if I'm wrong.]

                            It seems that hating/not liking is way more likely to lead to irrationality than loving/liking. IMO, at least an order of magnitude greater.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              Sorry, but loyalty works 2 ways. Where was Hibbert's loyalty to the Pacers? His loyalty was only to himself and his pocketbook with his "it's all about me attitude." I'm not asking Hibbert to re-sign for peanuts, but what he insisted on being paid is too much for him. He's not that quality of player for the money he's being paid.
                              Agreed. I just cannot believe a professional athlete would have the nerve to put his and his family's well being ahead of his loyalty to a team that could and would trade him in heartbeat for the right deal. What a selfish prick. I can't imagine anybody caring any less about the loyal fans than Roy Hibbert. How dare he take the amount that was offered to him by multiple teams of people whose sole job is to determine what price a player is worth. He should have told the management groups in Portland, Indiana, and the other clubs who offered him a max contract that he wasn't worth that much. We all know that's what we would have done in his shoes. Becasue we have a sense of loyalty.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


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

                                Some of these people saying Roy (or any non ring-chasing NBA player in their prime) should have taken less than he was offered should do the same the next time their employer offers them a raise, or risk the wrath of some random person telling they are getting paid too much for them....


                                Hmmm... I think theres an advertising campaign in there somehow.
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X