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 q&a

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

  • montieth q&a

    some interesting questions this week, I highlighted a few that "spoke"

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


    Question: What are the chances Ron Artest will be traded (or at least heavily shopped) this off-season? Regardless of our personal opinions of his progress and personality he is officially a cancer. Trouble finds him or he finds it, both little and small. Detours and Distractions for a team with "One Goal".

    If so, what is his value now? Who would be a quality choice? What about Artest and Scot Pollard (maybe a little more if needed) for Brad Miller? What are the chances? (O'Hara from Kansas City)

    Answer: Detours and Distractions. That's not a bad slogan. I don't think the Pacers' marketing department would approve, but nobody can deny the accuracy, so far at least.

    It's certainly possible the Pacers will try to trade Artest in the off-season, but they aren't going to worry about that until the off-season. They're still hoping he is allowed to play this season. Who knows? If he does, things could change dramatically for him. He was playing his best basketball ever before the suspension.

    It's impossible to guess what his value might be. It's highly unlikely he would bring fair value. He's already "underpaid" for his talent and his recent troubles would make it even more difficult to obtain a player nearly as good as him.

    Peja Stojakovic was mentioned over the summer as a possible target, but most NBA people believe (and I agree) that Artest is much better than Stojakovic. Pacers fans have seen Stojakovic twice in the last two weeks and he hasn't been much of a factor against them. He's a great shooter, but on nights when he's not shooting well he has little to offer.

    The deal you mention wouldn't work because Artest and Pollard make far more in salary than Brad Miller.

    Question: I went to the Sacramento game and it's obvious the Pacers miss Jamaal Tinsley. When will he be back and who might be back next, considering injuries and those suspended? It looked like Sacramento was going only hard enough to win. (Mike from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

    Answer: Tinsley is expected to play at Atlanta on Tuesday. You're right, the offense doesn't run nearly as smoothly when he's not playing.

    Who will be next? If you mean the next injured player, that would be Austin Croshere, who sprained his ankle in that game. He didn't make the trip to Atlanta, but hopes to play Friday against Toronto.

    Sacramento had played the previous evening in Minnesota, and was a little sluggish in the first half. I don't think it's accurate to say they were only going hard enough to win. They had to go overtime to win the game, and I don't think any team can calibrate its effort that exactly.

    Question: I know this is more of a legal question, but I would still like to hear your thoughts on it. It seems to me that the NBA has a legal obligation to provide a safe environment for the players, as does any employer for their employees. Wouldn't it make sense for the players' union to sue the NBA over this issue to at least get David Stern to address the situation and possibly gain some leverage in getting the players' suspensions reduced? (Steve from Fort Wayne, Ind.)

    Answer: I think it does make sense, and it could come to that. Some have argued the Pacers could sue the Palace of Auburn Hills for the same reason, but that would be an extreme measure. The NBA, of course, could argue that the players helped create the environment that brought about the brawl, but the prosecutor in Oakland County was clear that the fans were mostly responsible. First, however, the union will want to see if their appeal succeeds.


    Question: Hey Mark, I enjoy you column way up here in Alaska. I'm writing in regards to "Russ from Warren, MI" and your reply. First, players have leaned on the scorer's table many, many times before Artest and have not had a cup thrown on them (at least to my limited knowledge).

    Second, "passive provocation?!?!?" That is way too similar to claiming that a woman got raped because of what she was wearing! Artest's leaning on a table gives no one the right to throw a cup filled with a beverage upon him. That is nearly as idiotic, meaning one without knowledge, as Stern's lack of sanctions against the Pistons organization for their numerous failures in the brawl.

    I doubt that your editor will choose this email to print, but if you'd reply to me I'd be appreciative of your response. Thanks again for all of your information. It really helps me to get a balanced opinion up here. (Tony from Sitka, Alaska)

    Answer: Tony, how does someone wind up in Sitka, Alaska?

    You make a very good point about "passive provocation." Artest's actions didn't justify a fan throwing something at him. But I've said before, he was asking for trouble by putting his arms behind his head and crossing his legs, putting on a show of relaxation while Wallace ranted and raved. Sitting 15 feet from him, I had a feeling something bad was going to come of it. Little did I know ...

    Usually, players sit on the scorer's table. Technically, Artest did nothing wrong by stretching out on the table, but if he had not done so, he probably wouldn't have been hit by anything. But there are a lot of other issues here, too. Like Wallace's wild over-reaction and the referees' absolute failure to control the situation by ejecting Wallace as soon as he shoved Artest.

    Question: On the Pacers board there has been a lot of arguing regarding Reggie Miller and Fred Jones. Basically the argument is over which one of these guys should be starting when everyone is back. What do you think? (Michele from Denver, Colo.)

    Answer: I understand the arguments for both, but it makes more sense for Miller to start. He pairs better with Tinsley because he needs a good passer to get shots. Jones is more of a one-on-one player and can score regardless of who he's playing with. Bringing Jones off the bench helps balance the lineup, too. He adds a strong defender to the second unit and some scoring punch as well.

    Also, it would be a major disruption to everyone (as if this team hasn't had enough disruptions) to bring Miller off the bench when he's started every year of his career but his first.

    Remember, starting is nearly irrelevant. The least important part of a game is the first few minutes. It's all about playing time and finishing. Many games, both Miller and Jones will be on the floor at the end of the game.

    Question: If throwing a drink in someone's face is assault and battery, then wouldn't aggressively shoving your hands into someone's neck and face be considered the same? The prosecutor says the fan "started" it all, but didn't this all "start" with the outward assault on Ron Artest by Ben Wallace? How come he wasn't charged? Do you get a free pass if you're on a playing field to assault others? (Scott from Suttons Bay, Mich.)

    Answer: Another very good question. I would guess the prosecutor was ruling on the brawl itself and taking into account that Artest would never have gone into the stands if a drink hadn't been thrown at him. Also, Artest wasn't injured by Wallace.

    It's interesting to see how public opinion has emerged now that time has passed and the issue can be reviewed more objectively. It's also interesting that the media either hasn't caught up to public opinion or happens to disagree with it. Certainly some fans still believe Artest is more to blame than anyone, but I sense that the widespread opinion among the general public is that he got a bad deal.

    The prosecutor's ruling was direct rebuttal of David Stern's, I believe. While Stern acted out of anger, after having viewed the replays a thousand times (and no doubt worrying about what the league's sponsors were thinking), the prosecutor took a cooler and more legal approach.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  • #2
    Re: montieth q&a

    Montieth's Q and A's have emerged as his best work. This vehicle allows him to step out of his role of reporter. Thanks for posting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: montieth q&a

      If I had to sum up Ron Artest in one line...

      He was playing his best basketball ever before the suspension.
      That would be it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: montieth q&a

        When we acquired Ron aAtest I had no idea he would ever turn into as good a player as he is. I just did not think he had that type of talent

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: montieth q&a

          I was living in Chicago when he played there and certain local media guys couldn't get enough of him, so I had a sense he had plenty of potential.

          Still, the legal issues brought up by the Q&A are a weak/false hopes for us. I've worked in the legal feild for years now. nothing happens quickly in law, and even if you win, you don't because everything goes to appeal. It will be 2008 before the legal issues are over.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: montieth q&a

            Originally posted by :bunny:
            Answer: Detours and Distractions. That's not a bad slogan. I don't think the Pacers' marketing department would approve, but nobody can deny the accuracy, so far at least.
            That's funny.
            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


            • #7
              Re: montieth q&a

              I agree that the legal issues won't be wrapped up for a while. I also agree that the player's and the Pacers have a basis for a lawsuit because the NBA & the Palace did not provide adequate security to provide a safe work environment. I think that type of lawsuit will be a last resort but I see it happening.
              "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Comment

              Working...
              X