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

Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

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

  • Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

    Looks like he could possibly be had for that:

    http://www.sacbee.com/martymac/story/268925.html

    Matt Barnes has wanted to hold his own basketball camp for children in the Sacramento area but had a goal in mind beforehand.

    "I really wanted to establish myself in the league before having a camp," he said of the gathering scheduled for next Monday through Friday at Rocklin High School. "It's a way of giving back to kids in the area and also meet some of the guys I'm bringing in to see them."

    Barnes, 27, played a major role last season in the Warriors' upset of top-seeded Dallas in the first round of the Western Conference playoffs.

    He played in 76 regular-season games with the Warriors and each of the 11 playoff games against the Mavericks and the Utah Jazz.

    In three previous seasons with the Los Angeles Clippers, Kings, New York Knicks and Philadelphia 76ers, he played no more than 56 games. For the first time, Barnes can anticipate having a job and financial security.

    The midlevel exception of $5.356 million seemed a realistic salary starting point in the eyes of many, including Barnes. In a departure from his usual steady, low-key approach, Barnes left agent Bill Neff, who had beaten many a bush over the past few seasons to get Barnes into veteran training camps, to sign with agent Dan Fegan, who just happened to have fellow Warriors Stephen Jackson and Jason Richardson (since traded to Charlotte).

    "I was talking to a lot of people who were telling me that I needed a big-time agent to get that big money," Barnes said Wednesday evening.

    "That's the main reason I decided to change agents. It wasn't anything that (Neff) did or didn't do. We'll see if that was a smart decision or not. Basically, it was just me analyzing my situation."

    Wednesday was the first day teams could sign free agents, and Barnes said he has not received the offers he anticipated.

    "Right now, there's nothing happening," he said. "I was thinking the midlevel exception was realistic, but my agent has been telling me teams have questioned whether the success I had was because of (Warriors coach Don) Nelson's system and whether or not I could have the same success in another system.

    "It's pretty frustrating because I thought I had a good year," said Barnes, who averaged 9.8 points, 4.6 rebounds and 2.1 assists and shot 43.8 percent from the field, including 36.6 percent from three-point range, in 23.9 minutes per game during the regular season. "It was not a great season, but it was good. And from what other players have received, I thought I'd be right there in that mix. But Golden State has not come around to what I thought they might, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens."

    Barnes has spent the early portion of his NBA career working to improve during the offseason. Nelson showed a lot of faith and confidence in him, and that paid off for both during the playoffs, when Barnes shot 45 percent from the field (42.2 percent from three-point range) in 30 minutes per game.

    Barnes will have many experiences to share with the participants at his camp, which Rocklin High coach Steve Taylor will run.

    "Steve coached my team in the Optimist Game my senior year in high school," Barnes said. "I know it's the first year of the camp, so it might be a little rough. And a lot of the organization on this one was done without me because of the playoffs, but I think things are looking better and better."

    Barnes said there will be two sessions daily. Seventh- through 10th-graders will work from 1 to 4 p.m., and fourth- through sixth-graders will go from 5 to 8 p.m. The cost will be $175 per participant, he said, and kids can register the day of the camp.

    "I couldn't afford to go to any camp when I was young, so I wanted to make sure it was a realistic price," he said.

  • #2
    Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

    Nope....Too many SF as is.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

      I like Matt Barnes, but I'm guessing there's a reason no one else has offered him that. One good season in Nellie's system shouldn't make you 5mil. Though it might

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

        No.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
          Nope....Too many SF as is.
          Plus, he's worse than all the ones we do have. Ok, well maybe he's better than Shawne is now, but a lot more expensive too.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

            I like Barnes a lot. Mainly because he's probably the best defender on that team, I liked him before the playoffs. But I don't know if he'd be a good fit for the Pacers - I don't know, I mean if the pacers did sign him, I wouldn't be upset, but we do have a ton of small forwards.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

              Unless we somehow move one of the SFs......I don't see how we can add another one to the roster.

              Although Nellie's system does enhance the stats of any player on that roster....Barnes was one of the few solid defender on that roster that also happens to be a hustle-type players.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I like Barnes a lot. Mainly because he's probably the best defender on that team, I liked him before the playoffs. But I don't know if he'd be a good fit for the Pacers - I don't know, I mean if the pacers did sign him, I wouldn't be upset, but we do have a ton of small forwards.
                Matt Barnes is the man, but he fits MUCH better in the Warriors system (and culture, to be honest). He has said he'd absolutely love to stay in Oakland and I don't see him going elsewhere if he ain't getting more than the MLE.

                As for the "best defender" remark - he's probably the 4th best on the Dubs. A solid defender who plays scrappy, but he doesn't hold a candle to Baron and Jack, and Pietrus is reasonably ahead of him as well. Nothing wrong with being behind those three, but he certainly is not the best.

                The main problem with Barnes is his 3-point shot has simply been a one-season thing. It'll be imperative to his success if he maintains it because it was not a part of his arsenal at all until this year. His timely 3-pointers were probably the best contribution he made to the team, along with his tough attitude.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                  Another SF is not what we need. At least not if they can't legitimately play the "2". I don't think that's Barnes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                    No. Matt Barnes is this year's Bonzi Wells.
                    Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                      Originally posted by jcouts View Post
                      No. Matt Barnes is this year's Bonzi Wells.
                      Barnes has more tattoos than Wells so hands down he's better.
                      /sarcasm

                      "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                        Absolutely NOT!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                          We don't need another small forward. No way to Matt Barnes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                            Pietrus is a better fit for the Pacers, we know the Pacers were interested in him a couple of years ago. He's super atheletic, he can play the 2, defend, and hit the 3 on a consistent basis. He acould have a Gerald Wallace type of effect at a whole lot cheaper price, the Pacers should target him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Would we want Barnes for the MLE?

                              From what I've heard Pietrus can't shoot worth anything. However I'm not really sure about that and if anyone has a clearer opinion I'd like to hear it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X