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

So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

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

  • #31
    Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    Solo's a class act. Talking about wanting to stay because winning is more important than money. Likes being with Paul.

    We are not worthy of this guy.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/hills...ting-could-pay
    Was just about to post. I'll believe it when the ink dries, but great news!

    And our we certain about these cap rules restricting us to only offer 2.3 million? The article say Pacers might not be able to match.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

      Didn't we have this same conversation when we didn't pick up Hans or McRoberts option? When LB is done with you, he's done. Right or wrong. I expect Solo, J. Hill, and maybe Ian gone also, though I hope we keep Ian for a reasonable salary.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

        Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
        Didn't we have this same conversation when we didn't pick up Hans or McRoberts option? When LB is done with you, he's done. Right or wrong. I expect Solo, J. Hill, and maybe Ian gone also, though I hope we keep Ian for a reasonable salary.
        Read the articles that have been coming out. It was Vogel not Bird.

        Vogel wanted to play Chase and GRIII over Solo. The front office supports his decisions. Then the players asked for Solo to play more, so Vogel obliged.

        I think it's silly when people claim Bird forces Vogel to play/not play certain players. Bird has always seemed like he approaches it as, "this is what I think you should do, but you're the coach." Look at PG playing the 4.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          Read the articles that have been coming out. It was Vogel not Bird.

          Vogel wanted to play Chase and GRIII over Solo. The front office supports his decisions. Then the players asked for Solo to play more, so Vogel obliged.

          I think it's silly when people claim Bird forces Vogel to play/not play certain players. Bird has always seemed like he approaches it as, "this is what I think you should do, but you're the coach." Look at PG playing the 4.
          I don't think anyone has ever insinuated that Bird pulls a Grigson and directs who will and will not play. I do think Bird's vision of the future does influence who Vogel feels he should and shouldn't play.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Solo's a class act. Talking about wanting to stay because winning is more important than money. Likes being with Paul.

            We are not worthy of this guy.

            http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/hills...ting-could-pay
            This is encouraging!

            If he walks, it's going to really be a big loss. Larry screwed up so bad.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

              Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
              This is encouraging!

              If he walks, it's going to really be a big loss. Larry screwed up so bad.
              Let's put this into perspective. Solo is having a good series, but nobody is guarding him or thinking of guarding him. If you start him teams will prep and shut him down. All the focus is on PG, GHill, Monta, etc. and Solo is getting open looks and taking and making some. He's well into his career at this point. He's not Paul George or even George Hill and he will never be as good as Monta or George Hill. He's not even proven he can be a starter in the NBA and I doubt he ever will prove that. He's had a nice end to this season filled with completely open looks where he's the last guy guarded. Good backup at this point, but not a big loss. Draft the right guy in the second round and you get an upgrade.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Let's put this into perspective. Solo is having a good series, but nobody is guarding him or thinking of guarding him. If you start him teams will prep and shut him down. All the focus is on PG, GHill, Monta, etc. and Solo is getting open looks and taking and making some. He's well into his career at this point. He's not Paul George or even George Hill and he will never be as good as Monta or George Hill. He's not even proven he can be a starter in the NBA and I doubt he ever will prove that. He's had a nice end to this season filled with completely open looks where he's the last guy guarded. Good backup at this point, but not a big loss. Draft the right guy in the second round and you get an upgrade.
                I'm not even referencing his offensive output. Obviously his 3pt shooting has been epic though.

                His defense, intangibles and his hustle (not to mention just overall smart play) make him a guy you just want to have available.

                Imagine if we didn't have him in this series. He's been defending and making clutch, winning plays down the stretch.

                He has a huge Bball IQ. Great teammate. Willing to take on any role asked. Humble. The list goes on.

                If we lose him because of a 2 million dollar option that's just a huge mistake.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                  I think right now Solo is a good 8-9th player. He would be a solid role player on any team. I think that is how most teams will value him, even after this playoff series.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                    I think that Solo has earned the right to leave if he wants, but I also think that I would love to see him re-sign here and continue his role. He might not be PG, Monta, GH, or Turner but he does a lot of things well and his hustle is infectious to other players. I screwed up turning down the option so I think signing him will cost a little more.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Let's put this into perspective. Solo is having a good series, but nobody is guarding him or thinking of guarding him. If you start him teams will prep and shut him down. All the focus is on PG, GHill, Monta, etc. and Solo is getting open looks and taking and making some. He's well into his career at this point. He's not Paul George or even George Hill and he will never be as good as Monta or George Hill. He's not even proven he can be a starter in the NBA and I doubt he ever will prove that. He's had a nice end to this season filled with completely open looks where he's the last guy guarded. Good backup at this point, but not a big loss. Draft the right guy in the second round and you get an upgrade.
                      First, he's not "well into his career." Normally he would still be on his rookie deal another season. He's only gotten minutes for 1 and a half seasons, so playing wise he's not much more experienced than Myles Turner. Solo has played 3000 minutes in NBA, Turner 1300.

                      Second, Solo has a unique combination of size and athleticism. His defense is very valuable and he can cover 1-4, and he is a good ball handler, decent drive ability and passer (even played point guard some last year). The only thing missing from his game is shooting, which he may have fixed, shooting 61% in playoffs. But just being capable of hitting the three, creates spacing, which is another valuable ability.

                      You put all this together, not only is Solo a great talent that may not be easily replaced, but he also has potential to get better. Could you imagine him as a Spur with their shooting coach?

                      Kind of upsetting Vogel was playing Chase and GRIII over Solo for so long. Bird really had no choice to not pickup the option if the coach preferred GRIII.
                      Last edited by freddielewis14; 04-30-2016, 11:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Was just about to post. I'll believe it when the ink dries, but great news!

                        And our we certain about these cap rules restricting us to only offer 2.3 million? The article say Pacers might not be able to match.
                        I echo your sentiment - I'll believe it when the contract is signed! And not a minute before.

                        That's the kind of thing FA's will say in the middle of a playoff run. After the season his agent will sit him down and present cold hard logic about accepting less money to stay with a team that has given up on him once already.

                        And yes, we're certain about the restrictions.

                        Also LOL at MM painting it as "Vogel's decision with the support of the front office". Yeah right.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          The question that needs to be asked is whether Solo even wants to come back to a team that declined an extremely cheap player option to keep him around next season.

                          Ask yourself, would you want to stay after that?
                          Better question: Why did we decline the option in the first place? Like you said, it's extremely cheap, we aren't running up against the cap or hard cap, even when he wasn't playing he's a good locker room guy...just seems like we should have rolled the dice on him for another year at the very least.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Let's put this into perspective. Solo is having a good series, but nobody is guarding him or thinking of guarding him. If you start him teams will prep and shut him down. All the focus is on PG, GHill, Monta, etc. and Solo is getting open looks and taking and making some. He's well into his career at this point. He's not Paul George or even George Hill and he will never be as good as Monta or George Hill. He's not even proven he can be a starter in the NBA and I doubt he ever will prove that. He's had a nice end to this season filled with completely open looks where he's the last guy guarded. Good backup at this point, but not a big loss.
                            You're right...he shouldn't be starting. He's only getting huge minutes cuz we don't have anyone else that can do the job. At some point, even if we do get an upgrade and an actual legit Starter....Solo won't be asked to start...nor should he.

                            No one is suggesting that he should start AFTER this season. He's ( as you suggest ) a solid Wing off the bench on a good Playoff Team.

                            The reason why this "stings" so much is cuz of what TMJ31 said ( with the bold part being the most important ) :

                            Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
                            I'm not even referencing his offensive output. Obviously his 3pt shooting has been epic though.

                            His defense, intangibles and his hustle (not to mention just overall smart play) make him a guy you just want to have available.

                            Imagine if we didn't have him in this series. He's been defending and making clutch, winning plays down the stretch.

                            He has a huge Bball IQ. Great teammate. Willing to take on any role asked. Humble. The list goes on.

                            If we lose him because of a 2 million dollar option that's just a huge mistake.
                            I agree....we'll find some replacement for a Forward that should only get backup minutes on a Solid Playoff Team ( which is what we are aiming to be ). It shouldn't be too hard to find someone that is better than Stuckey and CJ. The problem is that finding one will cost more than $2.2 mil and eat into our Cap Space....the Cap Space that should have all gone to upgrading our Starting lineup.

                            We essentially shot ourselves in the foot when it came to Cap Management and how we will approach this offseason for whatever reason.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold
                            Draft the right guy in the second round and you get an upgrade.
                            We're talking about a 8th to 9th Man in a Playoff bound lineup. I'm not counting on some 2nd rounder to fill the role that Solo filled unless some 1st round prospect falls.

                            It's not like Lance Stephenson's grow on trees, you know

                            EDIT - Maybe you meant 1st round pick to fill Solo's shoes? If so, likely....but we could have used that 1st round pick to fill other holes in this roster
                            Last edited by CableKC; 05-01-2016, 01:14 AM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Better question: Why did we decline the option in the first place? Like you said, it's extremely cheap, we aren't running up against the cap or hard cap, even when he wasn't playing he's a good locker room guy...just seems like we should have rolled the dice on him for another year at the very least.
                              Solo must have p*ssed in his cornflakes or something.

                              As everyone has suggested.....it's likely cuz Solo didn't take working out and improving during the offseason as serious as Bird had wanted him to do from season to season. Bird's a no-nonsense guy....if this is what he believes should be done by his Players, Solo simply didn't meet his expectations.

                              Too bad...I know that he's replaceable, that he's nothing more than an Emergency Starter ( barely ) that is better suited to come off the bench while getting regular minutes....but it was a mistake not to pick up his Team option PERIOD ( I'm not directing this point at cdash or anyone else here, it's more a comment about the FO ).

                              One more thing....I want to be clear about this....none of us that are towing this line are saying that Solo isn't replaceable and that we are absolutely screwed when he leaves. We're saying that it was a mistake not to pick up his Team Option and the resulting fallout ( mainly the impact to our Salary Cap to find a replacement and the resulting Cap Space that will be eaten up to improve a bench with little depth ) could mean the difference in Salary Cap Space between making a legit run at a Near Elite Player ( let's say, Batum ) but settling for a barely Starting Quality Player ( let's say, Afflalo ).

                              Now....if the $2.2 mil in Cap Space that is saved will help us significantly upgrade our Starting lineup...great. It will just mean that it could come at the cost of our bench and another season of CJ backing up PG13 . I just hope that Bird is able to pick out another quality Bench Player in the 1st round.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 05-01-2016, 01:11 AM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                                Originally posted by sav View Post
                                If I am Solo, I am keeping a close eye on the Lakers. They have a lot of CAP space and it is his home town.

                                If they bring in a couple of good players and look like they may be a good playoff team, I'm signing with them.
                                This is a landing spot I have been predicting. I really think the Lakers will go after him.


                                "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                                "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X