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

Mark Monthieth's latest Q&A

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Mark Monthieth's latest Q&A

    I like how he is critical of ESPN. ESPN is a disgrace to TV. Too bad another all sports giant could not come along and put ESPN in its place. One eastern conference GM thinks a Artest for Peja deal will get done

    http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/025639-4458-116.html

    Question: Mark, I have tried to support Ron Artest through the thick and thin, but he is not making a case for himself. What is he thinking? Is this just a stunt to sell albums? This is almost as bad as a Dennis Rodman incident.

    But hey, Coach Carlisle did the right thing in benching Artest. With all the injuries the Pacers have, you have to respect how professional he has handled the Artest situation. I don't care if Carlisle had to lie to cover it up. Keep it in the family.

    There was no need for the press to blow this out of proportion. I think the bigger news was that it was the Pacers' first loss and how big the loss was to the Clippers. I applaud Carlisle for his values.

    Has Artest overstayed his welcome in Indiana? Chicago put up with Rodman and still won championships. What could we get for a player like Artest? I think he might be more comfortable in a city like LA. (Phill from Brussels, Belgium)

    Answer: It's very difficult to put this recent episode into perspective. What we know is that he asked for time off in some manner, obviously inappropriately. So he got benched for two games. Then he complicated the issue by failing to express himself clearly before the game with the Clippers on Wednesday.

    He did not, as I reported Friday, ask for a month off to work on an album, as was construed from his comments on Wednesday. Don't get me started on how ESPN and other national media outlets handled the story. It's obviously a big story, but was wildly overblown in some places.

    Here's one thing to consider: Artest was benched for two games for saying or doing something inappropriate in the team environment. Marcus Fizer was caught carrying an illegal handgun and was suspended for one game. But Artest was the subject of the first 15 minutes or more on SportsCenter and Fizer was a brief. Strange.

    I don't know if he's overstayed his welcome. It really doesn't matter what the fans or media members think of that, it only matters what his teammates think. And I would guess there's some difference of opinion on that. None of the players have voiced a desire to get him traded, however. That doesn't mean they don't feel that way, but I don't know of it yet.

    They couldn't get equal value for him now anyway. Most people I've talked to within the Pacers organization consider Artest much better than Peja Stojakovic, so even that might not be a good trade. And a championship contender doesn't want to make bad trades.

    But it can be argued that Artest is too much a distraction and could hinder the team's effort to win a title. But then again, we aren't the ones to decide if he's a distraction, and he's clearly a greater distraction to the outside world than the Pacers.

    I would argue he's a lesser distraction than Rodman and even other players who don't get in trouble but are selfish and egotistical in their style of play. It's a very complicated issue.





    Question: Not to sound too much like Bob Kravitz ... but if the Pacers tried to move Ron Artest, do you think there are definitely takers out there willing to take on his risks? One that comes to mind is Isiah Thomas, who seems to love to tinker with the Knicks. I'm not sure what they have the Pacers would want in return, though. (Steve from Santa Ana, Calif.)

    Answer: It would be interesting to see what the Pacers could get for Artest, if they wanted to trade him. I'm sure it would vary widely from team to team, as GMs would have different outlooks. Thomas, I believe, would want him. But as you point out, what do the Knicks have that the Pacers want?

    They'd love to give up Shandon Anderson and the salaries match closely enough, but I can't see the Pacers doing that. They probably could get Kurt Thomas for him, too, but that also would be a much better deal for the Knicks.

    The Pacers have a chance to win a title, and Larry Bird isn't going to want to make an obviously bad deal that could come back to haunt the team later. The most rumored deal is for Peja Stojakovic. Bird might be willing to do that, but would the Kings?

    Rumors are starting to flow again, with at least one Eastern Conference GM saying privately that he believes that deal will get done. We'll see.



    Question: Have there been any talks about the Pacers trading for Eddy Curry, who has talked of his displeasure with the Bulls? He would be what we need to get the ring. (Ryan from Shelbyville, Ind.)

    Answer: I have heard no talks of that. You have to ask yourself, if the Bulls don't want him, could he really help the Pacers? So far he's an underachiever.

    I see your point, though. Curry has a lot of raw talent and a change of environment could help him. He might make a good backup center at this stage of his career. But he's making "just" $3.7 million this season and would be tough to trade for that reason.

    The Pacers don't have anyone whose salary matches his. They could trade Fred Jones and Jamaal Tinsley for him, but that would make no sense.



    Question: Donnie Walsh recently said he felt that former Pacer Mark Jackson would make a great NBA coach. I noticed Jackson is not active on any NBA roster this year. Do you know what he is up to? Perhaps coaching? (Deb from Indianapolis)

    Answer: Walsh has said that for several years, and I agree with him. Jackson is very bright and a natural leader. He seems to have the potential to succeed in coaching. I happened to ask Reggie Miller about Jackson before the game against the Clippers. Miller said Jackson wants to play again if he gets the right opportunity, but for now he's doing some work for ESPN.

    It will be interesting to see if Jackson gets a chance to be a head coach, or if he has to start as an assistant. He's got a strong personality, so I think it would be difficult for him to be an assistant. He has told me he would be willing to become a college head coach, but he prefers the NBA.



    Question: I have a fairly irrelevant question but one that is bothering me nonetheless. When Brad Miller was here both he and Reggie Miller had to wear their first initials on their jerseys.

    Both James Jones and Fred Jones simply have Jones on the back of their jerseys. Are they easier to tell apart than Brad and Reggie were?

    Why don't they have the first initials? I certainly don't mind and would not want to mess up Freddie's increasingly nice shooting touch, but I was wondering if there was a rule and if so why we are ignoring it. If not, why did Reggie and Brad need to do that? (Dan from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

    Answer: This is a good question, and I haven't thought of it. Seems like other issues have taken precedence lately.

    I'll check into it, though. I would guess a team official decided the first initials weren't necessary. I know some people didn't think Reggie should have to have an R. stitched on his jersey given his status with the franchise, but it didn't bother him.



    Question: Alonzo Mourning wants out of New Jersey. Do you think the Pacers would have any interest? I am of the opinion the Pacers need a big physical presence. I know Mourning is minutes limited, but I feel he could help. (Gary from Houston, Texas)

    Answer: I agree, Mourning could be a major asset -- at least as a backup center. But at what price? He's making $5.4 million this year and is due more than $12 million over the next two seasons. That's a huge risk for someone with his health problems. If you could get him for a more reasonable price it would make sense. The Pacers would have to trade for him, so they would be giving up talent as well.



    Question: What's up with all the injuries? Does the team not have a conditioning and flexibility coach? It's obvious they know how to build a player's strength (i.e. Jermaine O'Neal's new frame, and Jonathan Bender's new physique), but my guess is it won't be long before Jamaal Tinsley goes down with some type of injury. On another note, the NBA injured list is starting to build the same momentum as the NFL's. (Jeremy from Providence, R.I.)

    Answer: The Pacers have the standard array of coaches. Most of the injuries have been freakish, and couldn't be prevented by any method of training. Reggie Miller and Anthony Johnson suffered broken hands. Jeff Foster was hurt in a pickup game in the summer. O'Neal was injured in a workout.

    One could argue a muscle strain or injury of that sort could be the result of insufficient training, but it's really difficult to quantify. As for Tinsley, he got hurt in the opener at Cleveland, suffering a neck injury when he collided with Tractor Traylor. But he hasn't missed in any games.



    Question: So ... Primoz Brezec's first game he gets 15 points and nine rebounds and then in his second game he leads the Bobcats to victory with 20 points and 10 rebounds. And we let this guy rot on the bench for years? Huh? What am I missing? (Jamie from Indianapolis)

    Answer: I'm sure a lot of fans are wondering the same thing. Brezec was respected by the Pacers, but they didn't believe he was as good as Jeff Foster, Jermaine O'Neal and Scot Pollard. Pollard didn't play much last season and Brezec was in line behind him.

    The Pacers were hoping not to lose Brezec in the expansion draft, but I'm sure most of the people in the organization are surprised by how well he's playing. He would be a great asset to the team now with all the injuries, but if everyone was healthy, who would play?



    Question: Hello fellow Pike High School alum. I remember you saying you played varsity basketball for the Red Devils. Did you play for Ed Siegel? Also, do you think you would have made the Pike teams that won state titles in 1998, 2001, and 2003? (Eric from Indianapolis)

    Answer: I did play for Mr. Siegel, graduating in 1973. But I'm not among the baby boomers who think the players of today are worse than those of our era. I seriously doubt I would have made the state title teams.

    But then it's difficult to compare eras. If I had been in school in later years I would have had more opportunities to improve and been a much better player. When I played, the IHSAA didn't allow high school kids to be coached in the off-season, and Pike didn't open the gym to athletes.

    That was a great frustration to me. I'd go over to the school's outdoor court in the parking lot hoping to play, but a lot of nights nobody else showed up. I spent a lot of time shooting around when I should have gone to a park in another school district and played.

    Also, weight training and conditioning programs were not common for high school players then. The game is far more advanced now, on every level.




    [edit=24=1100380121][/edit]
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Mark Monthieth's latest Q&A

    Nice to see he didnt really answer my question. He just said he would check into it.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Mark Monthieth's latest Q&A

      Still one of his better Q&A's.

      I'd disagree with him on one item. Dennis Rodman wasn't selfish and egotistical on the court. He was everywhere else and was a huge distraction in the locker room and with the press but on the court he played to win.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Mark Monthieth's latest Q&A

        Oh I would rather he admit that he does not know than just make something up. I dont really care about the answer it is just one of those things I was curious about.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Mark Monthieth's latest Q&A

          Originally posted by Unclebuck

          They'd love to give up Shandon Anderson and the salaries match closely enough, but I can't see the Pacers doing that.




          me either, he just agreed to sign with Miami.

          Comment

          Previous template Next
          Working...
          X