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

Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

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

  • #46
    Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

    Originally posted by AG77 View Post
    I'm happy to see a lot of people like Barnes. From what I've seen he always appears do bring in energy. He can also start if needed. I wanted him last year and think he might have been one of the best values around. 10pts 5 boards and almost 3 assists for under $800K. I would love to get him instead of Graham. I wonder why teams are reluctant to sign him? His tattoos don't give him the best image and I hope this isn't why. I've never heard of any character issues with him. Have any of you?
    I think he does a lot of good stuff off the court but I know he can get kinda chippy on the court. Kind of a backwards logic from past seasons with the Pacers.
    JOB is a silly man

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

      Ross was the guy I wanted, but the mavs signed him today.

      So, of that list, I have interest in Moon, Bogans, Barnes, Parker, and Udoka. I also like Jeremy Richardson, Erik Daniels, Coby Karl, and malik hairston.

      For the big man, I would love to try to grab Pops Mensah-bonsu if the Raptors have to let him walk to get Turkoglu. I still think there is upside for Richard Hendrix and Jermareo Davidson too.

      On the PG front, i would prefer to roll the dice with NBDL or undrafted guys looking for potential upside guys like a Walker Russell, Russell Robinson, Kevin Kruger, Curtis Stinson type. I would prefer Jack over those guys though.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

        Originally posted by IndyProdigy View Post
        i personally want von wafer. hes a guy who has been used to having pretty good productivity off the bench. he got some good experience last year. fairly cheap and a solid backup for rush OR granger.

        I like Von but he's a cold-hearted gunner. Sometimes that's a good thing because he's not afraid to take and knock down big shots. It's also a bad thing because he never passes the ball once he puts it on the floor.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

          I'm not sure why (maybe the Dallas-GSW series), but Barnes is wildly overrated, from my perspective.

          He has the reputation of being a good defender; but he's a man without a position, who doesn't have the quickness to guard wings or the strength to defend inside.

          Yes, he delivers some really hard fouls, but that doesn't make him a good defender.

          He's an average rebounder for a 3/4 tweener.

          Offensively, he's basically a spot-up shooter but a very streaky one. He only shot above 35% from beyond the line once in his career. Even considering his low usage rates, he isn't a very efficient scorer or a very mistaken free player. So, you basically have an energy guy who's a bit of a defensive liability and doesn't do nothing especially well. He's a good 9th man, but no more than that.

          Many Celtics fans have been asking for this guy for the last 2 seasons and I can't understand why. I wouldn't trade Scalabrine for him.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post
            I'm not sure why (maybe the Dallas-GSW series), but Barnes is wildly overrated, from my perspective.

            He has the reputation of being a good defender; but he's a man without a position, who doesn't have the quickness to guard wings or the strength to defend inside.

            Yes, he delivers some really hard fouls, but that doesn't make him a good defender.

            He's an average rebounder for a 3/4 tweener.

            Offensively, he's basically a spot-up shooter but a very streaky one. He only shot above 35% from beyond the line once in his career. Even considering his low usage rates, he isn't a very efficient scorer or a very mistaken free player. So, you basically have an energy guy who's a bit of a defensive liability and doesn't do nothing especially well. He's a good 9th man, but no more than that.

            Many Celtics fans have been asking for this guy for the last 2 seasons and I can't understand why. I wouldn't trade Scalabrine for him.
            really you wouldn't trade Michael Rapaport for barnes!?!?! i like him for a 2 year contract simply because what he is good at can work with what we're doing now. yeah he has flaws, but thats why he's cheap. long shooter with energy, i'm game

            http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playe...layerId%3d1765
            hollinger on barnes

            Scouting report: When he isn't spotting up for 3s, Barnes basically plays as an energy guy who can come in at either forward spot. Though he's dramatically undersized for power forward at 6-7, 235 pounds, he's very tough and manages to hold his own on the glass. His problem is size mismatches in the post, which is why he tends to play in the frontcourt only in small-ball lineups; that was every day in Golden State, but is likely to be less often with his new employers.

            Barnes handles the ball very well for his size and can be used as a point forward. He'll get out of control on drives to the basket at times and doesn't have the strength to post up or muscle his way to the hoop off the dribble, which is why he's mostly used as a spot-up shooter.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              I'm not sure why (maybe the Dallas-GSW series), but Barnes is wildly overrated, from my perspective.

              He has the reputation of being a good defender; but he's a man without a position, who doesn't have the quickness to guard wings or the strength to defend inside.

              Yes, he delivers some really hard fouls, but that doesn't make him a good defender.

              He's an average rebounder for a 3/4 tweener.

              Offensively, he's basically a spot-up shooter but a very streaky one. He only shot above 35% from beyond the line once in his career. Even considering his low usage rates, he isn't a very efficient scorer or a very mistaken free player. So, you basically have an energy guy who's a bit of a defensive liability and doesn't do nothing especially well. He's a good 9th man, but no more than that.

              Many Celtics fans have been asking for this guy for the last 2 seasons and I can't understand why. I wouldn't trade Scalabrine for him.
              I can see your point regarding him. I'm guessing that if we did sign him...he would be a 8th-9th Man on our roster.

              Also, why would you consider him a 3/4? Despite his slowness, I'd guess that he'd be closer to a 2/3 then a 3/4.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                Doesn't Von Wafer have attitude problems?

                I was in a meeting and was listening to live feeds of the Lakers-Rockets Game 2. I happened to heard that Houston Rockets' player Von Wafer was thrown out of the game by his own coach. The reporter was saying that during the fourth quarter, Von was already taking a shower at the locker room. Reports say that we has shouting at his coach prompting the ejection. If this is true, expect a disciplinary action not only from the Houston franchise but also by the league on Von Wafer.
                from ESPN:
                Von Wafer Shooting Guard (Rank: #45) | 6-5, 210 | Age: 23 ... a nice outside stroke whose attitude problems at Florida State has tanked his draft stock.
                hoopshype
                good athleticism...nice shot...attitude is a concern...
                Seems like a chucker too, so I'd stay away from him. He's not good enough to warrant the attitude and take a chance on.
                Last edited by PR07; 07-08-2009, 06:10 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                  Didn't know that. I'll pass.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                    I know this thread is about a wing, but I'm still thinking that Joel Anthony is the right guy to play b/u center for us. A good young player at a reasonable price. I like what he did with the Heat during their series with the Hawks and during the season.
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                      Doesn't Von Wafer have attitude problems?



                      from ESPN:


                      hoopshype


                      Seems like a chucker too, so I'd stay away from him. He's not good enough to warrant the attitude and take a chance on.
                      id say that he doesnt have it any worse than the attitudes of say ron artest or brad miller, i know thats water under the bridge, but for arguments sake, if we took a risk on those guys i dont see why it would be out of the question for von.

                      PLUS, im not surprised about his attitude, everybody has attitude problems from FSU.

                      if its not in the cards im not gonna disrespect the pacers decision, but in the playoffs this year i saw a guy that i hadnt seen before. he played great D on kobe, and he took it to the rim much more often and aggressive than i thought he could. but hey, i guess my opinion doesnt matter, Larry's does though.
                      "To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                        Originally posted by IndyProdigy View Post
                        id say that he doesnt have it any worse than the attitudes of say ron artest or brad miller, i know thats water under the bridge, but for arguments sake, if we took a risk on those guys i dont see why it would be out of the question for von.

                        PLUS, im not surprised about his attitude, everybody has attitude problems from FSU.

                        if its not in the cards im not gonna disrespect the pacers decision, but in the playoffs this year i saw a guy that i hadnt seen before. he played great D on kobe, and he took it to the rim much more often and aggressive than i thought he could. but hey, i guess my opinion doesnt matter, Larry's does though.
                        Im not sure how similar Ron and Brads issues were. And Im pretty certain its not fair to put them in the same sentence.

                        Im also fairly certain that Wafers problems are significantly closer to resembling Rons than Brads-since Brad never had a tendency to complain about touches-Wafer is definitely a ball hog and its not a big secret.

                        And Im absolutely certain that Wafer is no where near approaching the Allstar caliber players that Artest and Miller were.
                        The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                          What bizarre history did I sleep through to where Brad Miller was a problem of this variety? All I ever remember about Brad is health concerns and substance concerns. Nothing to do with getting into it with coaches.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Wing Player Free Agents of 2009 - Who Do You Want?

                            Yes, I prefer Brian Scalabrine to Matt Barnes. Scal is a more efficient outside shooter than Barnes, takes better care of the ball, is a very solid screener and can actually defend some guys, especially jump-shooting 4s. He also plays with energy and all that intangibles jazz.

                            I'm not sure what to do of Hollinger's claim that Barnes can play point-forward. His handling allows him to do it, but how valuable is that? If Barnes is your best or 2nd best ball-handler and playmaker on the floor for more than 4 possessions a game, you may start thinking who's going to represent your ballclub in the draft lottery.

                            I agree that a cheap Barnes playing a limited role is a good signing. As the Suns used him last season, playing 30mpg as a swingman, I think it screams disaster.

                            I don't know much about Von Wafer attitude problems, but what I know is that he's a guy that can win you a couple of games coming off the bench in a week just to lose you a few ones in the following week - at least that was like he played in Houston. I think radically aggressive gunners like Von Waffer are a bit dangerous under O'Brien. Skilled scorer though.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X