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

  • #76
    Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
    We know about the draft at least, because there was a feature article about it. Short version - Bird goes off by himself and phones his decision to the war room. I'll dig it out later when I have time.
    Birds either really good or really lucky in the draft so I can't complain there.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
      Birds either really good or really lucky in the draft so I can't complain there.
      I think that it's a combination of both luck and skill....but more skill than anything when it comes to having a solid Scouting Staff.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

        Ok, I found the article.

        http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...raft/29173885/

        Some snippets:

        And of course, it takes Bird, who has the final say.

        "I think one thing we've all learned from Larry (is) making sound decisions and patience. He is reflected in the draft room," Carr said. "Until Larry says who it is, that's when the NBA gets told who it is.
        Bird revealed team owner Herb Simon "likes to bring some friends in there," and estimates more than 25 people fill the team's draft room. So while the crowd munches on catered Shapiro's — a draft night tradition at Bankers Life Fieldhouse — Bird prefers to steal some moments away in the quiet and comfort of his own office. There, he'll watch more clips on Synergy, a company that produces specific cuts of college and pro players, talk to other executives around the league and come to a resolution.
        Once on the clock, Bird informs the team of his decision, then Carr will phone in the name to the NBA. Moments later, Commissioner Adam Silver walks to the podium and announces the next Pacer. Only once does Bird recall making a last-second pick. It was 2009 and the Pacers had the 13th selection. Bird couldn't decide between Ty Lawson and Tyler Hansbrough. In the final ticks of the clock, Bird ultimately listened to his gut and picked for size. He chose Hansbrough, while the point guard Lawson went 18th, just before future All-Star Jeff Teague.
        I would think that every player on the roster is handpicked by Bird, just as the rookies are. Pritch, Donnie, the scouts, the medical guys (especially the medical guys, according to the article) all offer their inputs, but ultimately Bird decides.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          Ok, I found the article.

          http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...raft/29173885/

          Some snippets:







          I would think that every player on the roster is handpicked by Bird, just as the rookies are. Pritch, Donnie, the scouts, the medical guys (especially the medical guys, according to the article) all offer their inputs, but ultimately Bird decides.
          But not Solomon Hill if I remember correctly. Hill was drafted following bird's year off, so he was Walsh's pick.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

            Just wanted to add an opinion that Solo will always be more valuable player at playoff time compared to regular season.

            Some reserves thrive when they meet opponent's 2nd string players and reflect less to the calibre of their own field-mates. These can be ball-dominant scorers, board-munchers, post players and so on...

            Then there are players for whom it is more important that they are playing WITH talent and can take on opponent's best in suitable role. Solo is this type of a player. He doesn't shrink against anyone, but he can not be asked to have a high-usage role in offense.

            The type A players are great bench players for regular season where rotations are longer & bench units play against each other for meaningful minutes. Solo is just not very good when he is asked to "lead" a less-talented unit - and it doesn't really matter how NBA-fringe lineup is on the other side.

            But when he is playing with talented teammated as a 4th or 5th offensive option... Then his smarts, versatility, hustle and defense suddenly become so much more valuable. That's a spot where he is as a 7th man of a playoff rotation!

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

              Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
              Just wanted to add an opinion that Solo will always be more valuable player at playoff time compared to regular season.

              Some reserves thrive when they meet opponent's 2nd string players and reflect less to the calibre of their own field-mates. These can be ball-dominant scorers, board-munchers, post players and so on...

              Then there are players for whom it is more important that they are playing WITH talent and can take on opponent's best in suitable role. Solo is this type of a player. He doesn't shrink against anyone, but he can not be asked to have a high-usage role in offense.

              The type A players are great bench players for regular season where rotations are longer & bench units play against each other for meaningful minutes. Solo is just not very good when he is asked to "lead" a less-talented unit - and it doesn't really matter how NBA-fringe lineup is on the other side.

              But when he is playing with talented teammated as a 4th or 5th offensive option... Then his smarts, versatility, hustle and defense suddenly become so much more valuable. That's a spot where he is as a 7th man of a playoff rotation!
              Good assessment. I hope that he finds a role like that where ever he goes and that he doesn't get into the wrong situation. Solo is a class act and I wish him well.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                Solo has proved he has a quality that is most important and can only be discovered during the playoffs: he steps it up when it matters. He's not a choker, he's a gamer. It's really unfortunate that we learned this after the fact.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                  I saw somewhere that a GM estimated that Solo would get $7-9 million per year on his next contract. We can only offer $2.3 million. I would say there is less than a 1% chance he will return.

                  Personally, I think he will wait a little while and see what the Lakers do. If he feels like they make enough moves that he thinks they can make the playoffs, I look for him to go there.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    Solo has proved he has a quality that is most important and can only be discovered during the playoffs: he steps it up when it matters. He's not a choker, he's a gamer. It's really unfortunate that we learned this after the fact.
                    I think that it's more unfortunate that there were more people on PD that could see that Solo could contribute in a meaningful manner as a solid bench Player than those ( along with the most important one ) in the Pacers FO that decided that he wasn't a likely long-term option for the Team.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                      Originally posted by sav View Post
                      I saw somewhere that a GM estimated that Solo would get $7-9 million per year on his next contract. We can only offer $2.3 million. I would say there is less than a 1% chance he will return.

                      Personally, I think he will wait a little while and see what the Lakers do. If he feels like they make enough moves that he thinks they can make the playoffs, I look for him to go there.
                      Pre-Revenue Salary Cap...that would translate into some $4 to 5 mil a year contract. That sounds about right for a backup Forward as some 7th/8th Man in the rotation.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                        I was just on the Knicks board and somebody there said they want Solomon Hill and would be willing to pay him 10 mil/per. LOL!
                        Last edited by presto123; 05-06-2016, 02:13 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                          Originally posted by sav View Post
                          I saw somewhere that a GM estimated that Solo would get $7-9 million per year on his next contract. We can only offer $2.3 million. I would say there is less than a 1% chance he will return.

                          Personally, I think he will wait a little while and see what the Lakers do. If he feels like they make enough moves that he thinks they can make the playoffs, I look for him to go there.
                          I like solo, but I'm not sure he's proven enough the last 2 years to deserve that kind of salary. Maybe 7, but that still seems kind of high to me. He did finish the season on a roll though. I hope he gets it.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            I would think that every player on the roster is handpicked by Bird, just as the rookies are. Pritch, Donnie, the scouts, the medical guys (especially the medical guys, according to the article) all offer their inputs, but ultimately Bird decides.
                            Every player except one. Solomon Hill. He was the only Pacer draft pick in the last decade that wasn't picked by Larry Bird. He was picked by Donnie Walsh.

                            Are we sure that it's a coincidence that Bird refused to pick up Solo's QO so early?
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              I think that it's more unfortunate that there were more people on PD that could see that Solo could contribute in a meaningful manner as a solid bench Player than those ( along with the most important one ) in the Pacers FO that decided that he wasn't a likely long-term option for the Team.
                              I think the percentages were probably about the same. Personally I'm right on board with the "messed up summer league and came into camp pretty unmotivated and out of shape" narrative, because we saw both the previous summer and camp as well. I truly think not getting his option picked up kicked him in the a$$.

                              Indiana Pacers - where coaches and players go to learn about the NBA before being kicked out of the nest.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Re: So are we totally certain we can't keep Solomon Hill?

                                Maybe I heard wrong yesterday, but I think Bird said something to the effect that if they decide to bring Solo back, it would cost more since they declined his option. It sounded to me like it's possible they could offer a competitive salary if they decide to do so. I don't know if that means they could back load his contract or if there is some way they could offer more than the $2.3 million.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X