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

Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

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

  • Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

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

    Question: In the Feb. 3 NY Post, columnist Peter Vescey defended his earlier reports that Al Harrington wanted to be traded to the Knicks. He even claimed that his detractors shouldn't rely on the local Pacer beat writer who's "often beaten to Pacer stories by the Post."

    I've always wondered why Peter doesn't just write for the Star as he always seems to have all the inside info on our Pacers, lol. Any response? And have you talked to Al's agent, who apparently confirmed to Vescey Harrington's trade demands with the team? (Steve from Indianapolis)

    Answer: First of all, the spelling is Vecsey, not Vescey. But I realize that accuracy always seems to go by the wayside when Vecsey's name comes up.

    I didn't talk to Harrington's agent about this latest rumor. I talked to Harrington. I'd rather go straight to the source, and that's Harrington in this case. We've reported stories on Harrington's frustration with playing time for about three or four years now. His agent seems to be the type who pushes management for more, and Al has been caught up in it somewhat. He's been honest about his desire to start, but he's always continued to say he's willing to accept his current role.

    As for Vecsey's claim that the beat writer is often beaten to local stories, that's ridiculous. He beats us to rumors and inaccuracies, but not to many facts. He probably would take credit for reporting Isiah Thomas was going to be the next Pacers coach at the end of Larry Bird's final season, but he went out on a limb for that one. The Star takes the more reputable approach of not publishing something unless we can put a source behind it. On the rare occasion we refer to an anonymous source, you can be certain it's a primary source and not some guy off the street.

    Rick Carlisle was interviewed for the job after Vecsey reported Thomas would be the next coach, so it was premature. Everyone realized, and we reported, that Thomas was the frontrunner, but it wasn't a done deal. He just happened to guess right on that occasion. Thomas told me later he nearly backed out of the running because it was taking so long for him to unload the CBA.

    Vecsey was a close friend of Thomas' at the time because they worked together in broadcasting, and he in fact promoted Isiah for the job with the Pacers. That's not something a journalist should be doing, but then Vecsey hasn't been regarded as a journalist in years.

    Sports Illustrated wrote a feature on Pete and his brother George a few years back and told of how Pete had Julius Erving as the best man at his wedding and took a personal loan from the Nets' owner when he bought a house. Those are major ethical violations for a journalist.

    Just give me $5 for every incorrect Vecsey report and I'd be retired and living on an island. The Harrington rumor is only the latest example. Last year he had Austin Croshere as part of a three-team trade on the day of the trade deadline. He once had the Pacers trading for Chris Weber. He had the Pacers trading for Dikembe Mutombo when Mutombo was in Atlanta. (The Star, unfortunately, fell for that one.) He once had Derrick McKey going to New Jersey. See the pattern?

    You can call this "beating the beat writer" if you like, but I'd call it looking like a fool. And, of the few trades the Pacers have made in recent years, I don't recall him having the break on any of them.

    Vecsey is the primary example of the modern approach to tabloid journalism, as is his paper, the New York Post. Accuracy means nothing. It's all about generating a headline that attracts attention. It's worked for him in that he's become more famous and wealthy than most journalists, but you have to sell your soul to do it. It's all about what you're willing to sacrifice, I guess.

  • #2
    Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

      Montieth really bend Vescey over and gave him the hippo @ss slap.


      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

        ----------------- Reggie Miller

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

          Cat fight ed:

          Why didn't the "Pacers' beat writer" go to Al's agent as well? ...Or how about going to Pacers management?

          Perhaps he went to the one party who he knew would give him the answer he wanted? I'm not sure any of them would've given him the straight story with the liberty to go public with it. OTOH, I think you could rest assured Al would be the least likely to confirm it.... and why would that be the end of the story?

          So, I am not impressed with Montieth's firing back. It has about as many holes in it as what he accuses Vecsey of IMHO.

          The truth is, the Star doesn't break much if any team news.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

            Great reply! I especially liked the go straight to the horse's mouth not the horse's a**, er horse's agent! Why would a journalist go to an agent instead of the player anyway? Is it because the journalist doesn't have access to the player? Or is it because the agent will give the journalist the headline? It sure does seem that Vecsey is wrong a lot more than he's right.
            "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
            - Benjamin Franklin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

              Interesting. I often defend Vescey or is it Vecsey I enjoy reading his columns. He has a ton of sources and he has been doing this for 25 years. Do I take everything he says as gospel, No. But I do pay attention to what he writes.

              Montieth, I remember starting a thread last May about how the "Star" never breaks a story. But last summer he broke a couple, I specifically remember being surprised, I think he broke the Brad Miller trade to Sac and maybe the early J.O signing. I think.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                I know Vescey tends to throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks & what doesn't, but over the years we've been far more able to get news from outside the star than inside it.

                I've said this before & I'll say it again. There is to much "closeness" between the Pacers P.R. department & the local newspaper.

                The Pacers media relations person, David Benner. David was columnist for years with the Star.

                The Pacers person in charge of their websight. Conrad Brunner. Conrad was the N.B.A. beat writer for years with the Indy news & then became the beat writer for the star as well as some form of editor.

                The pacers beat columnist for the star. Mark Montieth. A former employee of the Indiana Pacers.

                Sorry, but it will take a lot to convince me that there isn't a lot of "I've got your back" type of stuff going on there.

                I have always just considered Montieth an extension of the Pacers P.R. department.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                  The pacers beat columnist for the star. Mark Montieth. A former employee of the Indiana Pacers.

                  I have always just considered Montieth an extension of the Pacers P.R. department.

                  When did he work for the Pacers? What did he do?

                  I don't agree with you, I don't think Mark is just an extension of the Pacers PR department in any way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                    The pacers beat columnist for the star. Mark Montieth. A former employee of the Indiana Pacers.

                    I have always just considered Montieth an extension of the Pacers P.R. department.

                    When did he work for the Pacers? What did he do?

                    I don't agree with you, I don't think Mark is just an extension of the Pacers PR department in any way.
                    Pick up your 94 or 95 team book & you will see the Mark Montieth as one of the people who wrote the book. It's been awhile since I've listed this so to be honest with you I forget his actual title with the team.

                    Btw, for the record. I don't agree with you. I think of Mark as just an extension of the Pacers PR department in every way. :P


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                      Answer: First of all, the spelling is Vecsey, not Vescey. But I realize that accuracy always seems to go by the wayside when Vecsey's name comes up.
                      I thought that was one of the funniest lines ever from Mark.

                      I think Mark is completely justified being angry about being compared to Vecsey. As Mark points out the two of them do work from two sets of standards and Vecsey's standards aren't journalistically ethical. And that is the bottomline Mark shouldn't print what Vecsey would because he would be ruining his and the Stars crediblity. You may think that the Star and Mark's coverage are crap. That's fine but at least they print aren't widely believed to be untrue as is the case with Vecsey and the NY post.

                      I don't think that Mark is an extension of the Pacer's PR and believe he does a good job. But what would Mark have to do to prove he isn't part of the "Donnie conspiracy".
                      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                        The pacers beat columnist for the star. Mark Montieth. A former employee of the Indiana Pacers.

                        I have always just considered Montieth an extension of the Pacers P.R. department.

                        When did he work for the Pacers? What did he do?

                        I don't agree with you, I don't think Mark is just an extension of the Pacers PR department in any way.
                        Pick up your 94 or 95 team book & you will see the Mark Montieth as one of the people who wrote the book. It's been awhile since I've listed this so to be honest with you I forget his actual title with the team.

                        Btw, for the record. I don't agree with you. I think of Mark as just an extension of the Pacers PR department in every way. :P

                        I know nothing. Shultz.

                        I love your avatar

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                          Before Mark came to The Star, I believe he covered the Pacers for the Fort Wayne newspaper.

                          So I'm thinking, we've got some posters on this forum from Ft. Wayne that I'd prefer to read over Montieth.

                          I said this on a thread before the "fire", but I think Montieth is even more of an exention of the Pacers PR department when he does his little Q&A. I imagine that his actual published work is held to a higher standard than that Q&A. But when has Montieth ever questioned anything the Pacers have done? Its one thing to just be a neutral reporter. But his silence on certain topics is as disturbing as his pro-management slant on other topics.

                          Remember, all the stories about Isiah being on the hot seat during last year's playoffs came from the Boston press, because if Isiah performed like he did last year for any other team in any other city, he might not have been around to coach game #2. But Montieth just kept repeating the company line - he didn't want to step on any toes.

                          I didn't always like Conrad and David Benner as beat reporters because I thought they were too negative during the early 1990s. Remember when Conrad wrote that nasty article about Tank and then came into the 'closed' lockerroom to apologize - Chuck told him to leave and when he didn't Chuck picked him up and stuffed him in the trashcan over at NIFS? That's about the only time in my life I've been supportive of violence. ed: But Montieth is trying so hard to be cozy with management that those seem like the good old days.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                            Montieth > Vecsey

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Montieth "fires back" at Vecsey

                              I don't know about David Benner but Bill Benner (his brother) was the one who was the reporter for the Star in the 90's. He disappeared with Robin Miller after Gannett bought out Central Newspapers.

                              David may have been with the Indianapolis News earlier.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X