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

  • #91
    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    IMO, Hill is being overpaid by 2-2.5 mil.
    So when Hill turned down the $6M offer you'd have said see ya?
    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


    • #92
      Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

      Whether Hill is anybody's "dream PG" or not isn't the point. If he were the PG that some of you are pining for, he would be making MUCH more than $8M/ year anyway, and something else would have to give to make it all fit together.

      Regardless of which G positiweon Hill is playing, he's worth that contract. He's just a player that needs to be on the court. I'm open to the idea that without Granger, we have the worst (or at the very best, we have the least consistent) wings in the league. So if we could get a better point guard and move Hill to SG then we might indeed be a better team... especially when Danny returns.

      Absent Hill and West, this is back to a 32-win team (with or without Granger). Those are the two guys that are absolutely earning their contracts this season and that the Pacers can't afford to go forward without.
      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


      • #93
        Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

        If this was last season I would say Hill wasn't worth 8, but the way he has been playing he is well worth the 8. What makes it even better is Hill could easily be playing better than he has.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

          Originally posted by BillS View Post

          So when Hill turned down the $6M offer you'd have said see ya?

          If Hill wouldn't have re-signed for 6 mil, he should have been made to get an offer sheet from another team. No offer sheet, then sign on the dotted line for 6 mil.

          Pacers had the option of matching the offer sheet from another team. It's my belief Hill's agent couldn't come up with a offer sheet from another team at the salary Hill wanted, so Hill's agent worked Walsh over to get Hill his current contract. W/o an offer sheet Hill's agent is at a disadvantage. Thus Hill shouldn't get overpaid, but Walsh is in control. Walsh overpaid when only bidding against himself. SMH

          If Hill had gotten a 7 mil contract from some team, then match it and try to do a S&T with the team who gave Hill the offer sheet to recoup some value from the SA trade. Or watch how the season worked out with Hill at 7 mil. If the season didn't justify Hill's salary, then move him. The Pacers still had DC on contract for 1 more year.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            If Hill wouldn't have re-signed for 6 mil, he should have been made to get an offer sheet from another team. No offer sheet, then sign on the dotted line for 6 mil.

            Pacers had the option of matching the offer sheet from another team. It's my belief Hill's agent couldn't come up with a offer sheet from another team at the salary Hill wanted, so Hill's agent worked Walsh over to get Hill his current contract. W/o an offer sheet Hill's agent is at a disadvantage. Thus Hill shouldn't get overpaid, but Walsh is in control. Walsh overpaid when only bidding against himself. SMH

            If Hill had gotten a 7 mil contract from some team, then match it and try to do a S&T with the team who gave Hill the offer sheet to recoup some value from the SA trade. Or watch how the season worked out with Hill at 7 mil. If the season didn't justify Hill's salary, then move him. The Pacers still had DC on contract for 1 more year.
            You are talking like we know what happened behind closed doors. When in reality we have no idea. All we know is the end result.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              If someone disagrees with others, they are a hater.
              No, that's not it. I've disagreed with several people in these forums (just like everyone else) but I have never ever been called a hater. Because I'm not.

              The people who are called hater are called like this because they never give credit where it's due. For example, let's say that player X has a good game. Then the person Y says that "he still sucks" instead of a "good job, tonight". That's what hating a player means. It's not a matter of disagreeing with others. It's a matter of not giving credit where its due.

              DC had a lot of haters last year. People used him as a scapegoat for all our troubles. Our offense sucked and people thought that he was the reason why. This was the popular opinion back then, by the way. DC is not here anymore and our offense still sucks. We still have the same problems. So, DC wasn't the problem. Why did people thought that he was? Because several people hated him. Not all people who adopted that opinion hated DC but the ones who started this opinion certainly did. It was the popular opinion but it was still a hater's one.

              I remember a certain poster in a post-game thread after a game in which DC was crucial for us getting the win saying the following:

              "Good win by the Pacers, DC still sucks."

              Let me post 3 other hater opinions (non-Pacers related):

              1) "LeBron James does not play well in big games". Again, not all people who adopted that opinion were / are haters but the ones who started it were / are haters. It's not a factual opinion. It's just something that builds up a narrative and stirs drama (something that the media love, by the way).

              2) "Blake Griffin can only dunk". Again, not a factual opinion. It is mostly used as a shot towards Blake and it was started by people who hated him as a player.

              3) "Monta Ellis is a ballhog that never passes the ball". The same thing as the above. It was an opinion disproved by statistics but people still held on it. Once again, not all people who adopted this opinion were haters but the ones who started it were. Personally, I used to support this opinion but after watching the games a bit more closely and checking the statistics a bit more I stopped supporting it as it became obvious that it was non-factual opinion. I'm not sure if I hated Monta per se back then but one thing is sure. I didn't give credit where it was due. And it was wrong on my part.

              It's quite natural for people to like or dislike players. It's part of human nature and you cannot do anything about it. But you have to give credit where it's due. That's all there is to it in order to not be labeled a hater.

              By the way, I don't consider you a Hill hater. It's apparent that your problem is not with Hill as a player. It's with Hill's contract. And you have every reason to hate a contract. As long as you give Hill credit when he plays well (as far as I remember, you do) there's no reason for anyone to consider you a hater.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                $854,389 is nothing more than peanuts for the risk. Augustin is on a 1 year contract for more, and the risk of that contract isn't looking so bright at the present time. I must commend the Nets for taking the risk. It will pay dividends for them.
                I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                  He is the reason we have won a few of the games this year
                  Smothered Chicken!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                    Whether or not we COULD have got a better deal at this point is irrelevant. We DID sign him for 8 million a year. He fits our team, and if you're watching him this year he seems to turning into a better point guard by the week.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      If this was last season I would say Hill wasn't worth 8, but the way he has been playing he is well worth the 8. What makes it even better is Hill could easily be playing better than he has.

                      Yes, and if Walsh had gotten Hill for 6 mil everyone would have said Walsh was Exec of the Year too. Hill wouldn't even have to have a great season to be worth 6 mil, but at 8 mil he has to have a super season to be worth it. "The true fact is that salary paid makes how good the player's play has to be in order to justify the contract."

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.

                        I was under the impression that was why BIRD drafted Plumlee. Otherwise, why draft him?

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Yes, and if Walsh had gotten Hill for 6 mil everyone would have said Walsh was Exec of the Year too. Hill wouldn't even have to have a great season to be worth 6 mil, but at 8 mil he has to have a super season to be worth it. "The true fact is that salary paid makes how good the player's play has to be in order to justify the contract."
                          OK, what is your point? Yeah obviously it would have been better to get him at $6 million, everyone knows that without you going on and on about it.

                          $2 million is the difference between not needing to have a great season, and needing to have a super season? At that standard only LeBron consistently lives up to his contract.

                          If you have some information from a credible source that says we didn't try to get him for cheaper than by all means present it. If all you are doing is speculating because you personally don't think he is worth $8 million, please stop talking about how we didn't try to get him for less.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            I was under the impression that was why BIRD drafted Plumlee. Otherwise, why draft him?
                            You are right. I forgot about Miles

                            Shame on me
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              You are talking like we know what happened behind closed doors. When in reality we have no idea. All we know is the end result.

                              That doesn't have to make me happy with the end results!

                              I said when it came to light that there was a chance Walsh would be replacing Bird I felt it was a grave mistake. I still do!

                              I also stated if Walsh took over my interest in the Pacers would wain. AND unfortunately IT HAS! This comes from a Pacers fan who was there for the telethon to keep the Pacers afloat.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                I also stated if Walsh took over my interest in the Pacers would wain. AND unfortunately IT HAS!
                                That just makes me sad
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X