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 01-31-05

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

  • Montieth Q&A 01-31-05

    Mark Montieth: Pacers Q&A
    Indianapolis Star sports reporter Mark Montieth answers your questions about the Pacers.

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

    January 31, 2005


    Question: How is the Pacers' morale? I have seen various reports that Jermaine O'Neal is not talking to teammates and is down on the team and himself. Besides lacking intensity and aggression on the court, it appears the Pacers lack cohesion as well and aren't fighting for one another.

    Is there a lot of finger-pointing going on? Despite early comments by O'Neal, has the team accepted mediocrity and conceded the season? Even with Stephen Jackson back, I don't see anyone taking charge and firing up the team! (Neil from Indianapolis)

    Answer: Morale has been bad the last few games, but we'll have to see if this is only a temporary condition. You have to factor in all the injuries and illnesses that seem to have taken an emotional toll.

    O'Neal's body language has been poor the last couple of home games (heading into Monday's game at Philadelphia), but I don't see finger-pointing and lack of concern for one another. I do, however, see lack of leadership on occasion. This is a laid-back team. Jackson, Reggie Miller and Scot Pollard are the most natural leaders. Most of the others tend to sit back and just try to do their jobs.

    The mood was much brighter and more energetic at the shootaround Monday morning in Philly, so we'll see if that carries over.

    Question: With Reggie Miller retiring it opens up about 5 to 6 million dollars to spend in the off-season. What players are in that price range that we could use or will we sign anybody?? PLEASE answer this question!!!? (Ryan from Shelbyville, Ind.)

    Answer: Please answer THIS question: Why do you assume Reggie is retiring? You apparently saw the bogus TNT report, but did you read the article in The Star that shot it down and clarified the matter?

    Miller might retire after this season. It's even probable. But he hasn't made an announcement or as far as anybody knows hasn't reached a decision. He jokes about it, but if you know him you don't take everything literally.

    Beyond that, we all know that athletes have a difficult time pulling the trigger on retirement. He might think now that he wants to do it, but he might have a different opinion this summer if he's feeling OK and believes there's hope for a title next season.

    If he does retire the loss of his $6 million salary next season won't put the Pacers below the salary cap. They would have the mid-level exception to sign a free agent, however, assuming the next Collective Bargaining Agreement permits it.

    Question: Who makes the official decision on whether a player plays or not due to injury or sickness? (Tom from Seymour, Ind.)

    Answer: The ultimate decision rests with the player, since it's his health. You can't force a guy to play if he says he's hurt, because there might be legal ramifications if he suffers a more serious injury as a result.

    Sometimes a team's medical personnel will tell someone not to play against his wishes. This happened last week regarding Allen Iverson, and it's happening now with the Philadelphia Eagles and Terrell Owens.

    Question: First off, wasn't the trade for Brad Miller a couple of years ago in a winning season? Just curious. I just read an article by Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune that says the Pacers are in talks with the Hawks about a deal that would send Ron Artest and Scot Pollard to Atlanta for Antoine Walker. Is there any truth to this and would the salaries work out? (Andrew from Indianapolis)

    Answer: No, the trade that brought Brad Miller (and Ron Artest, Ron Mercer and Kevin Ollie) came in February of 2002, when the Pacers were 26-27. They finished the season 42-40 after winning their last five games.

    As for the trade rumor, hopefully you've seen the response I had to write after the Tribune story appeared. That rumor was a classic NBA trade rumor, full of holes, and an example of poor journalism. Almost as bad as Craig Sager's TNT report from the previous evening.

    Here's how it evolved. On Monday of last week I got a call from Sekou Smith, who used to help cover the Pacers for The Star. He works in Atlanta now and covers the Hawks. He had heard the rumor regarding Walker, Artest and Pollard. A few people there had mentioned it to them, and they were credible.

    It didn't make sense to me, but he and I checked it out the next day and it became obvious there was nothing to it. We both decided not to publish it, because that would only be yanking the chains of the fans with a bogus report.

    Beyond that, it makes little sense for either team. Walker is a power forward, and wouldn't fit with the Pacers behind O'Neal. His style of play also probably wouldn't fit. He also would be difficult to sign in the off-season, so whoever you trade for him you're probably giving away. The Pacers aren't going to give Artest and Pollard away.

    Atlanta is better served by keeping Walker and losing his salary after this season so they can pursue a free agent. If they trade him for players whose contracts don't expire, they limit their options. They hope to replace him with a great free agent.

    Beyond all that, the salaries don't match, so it couldn't be done. It would be a good thing if other reporters checked out such things before trying to fool the public.

    Question: Has the Pistons organization and fans been punished for their roles in the brawl? It seems to me David Stern quickly punished the Pacers organization and fans but didn't address the Pistons fans who were throwing the beer, chairs, etc., and the lack of security. (Jane from Indianapolis)

    Answer: The NBA has not punished the Pistons or their fans. I doubt the league can do much regarding fans. That's a matter for the courts.

    Question: Is reggie really retiring? (Mel from Durango, Colo.)

    Answer: He gave the impression before the season began that he probably will. But he's made no such announcement and hasn't told anyone of such a decision. Not even Craig Sager.

    Question: What's happened to Larry Bird? Donnie Walsh has been quoted and pictured in The Star recently in Pacers stories in situations where Bird probably should have been present. Is there a reason? (Tom from Greenwood, Ind.)

    Answer: You obviously wrote this before Monday's Star was published. I quoted Bird extensively in that one. Bird has been scouting in Europe. It's true that I've quoted Walsh more frequently in recent articles, but that's been a matter of access and convenience.

    Question: The Pacers are next to last in their division and haven't proved to have much of a better record with Jermaine O'Neal back and I don't see Stephen Jackson contributing much more either. So taking all that into account with teams in the Southeast with better records then the Central, should we be worrying about making the playoffs instead of winning a championship? (Steve from Noblesville, Ind.)

    Answer: At this point, yes. They're the ninth seed (after losing to Philadelphia) and going backward rather than forward. It makes no sense to talk about a championship now.

    Question: As a longtime Pacers fan, it doesn't make any sense to me that the Pacers are dead last in the league in rebounding. Jeff Foster is an excellent rebounder as is Jermaine O'Neal. What do you see as the problem and how are the Pacers trying to address it?

    Have the early-season injuries and suspensions just led to a slow start, is there a problem with the Pacers' defensive scheme, or is it simply a lack of effort? It appears to me that the Pacers in general are not showing much desire on the court. (Neil from Indianapolis)

    Answer: It's true that effort has been an issue in recent games. All the injuries and illnesses have had an impact, but that excuse can't be used forever. O'Neal has been in a funk recently, particularly when it comes to rebounding, but he's also had the flu.

    Rebounding is a fairly complex issue, though. The Pacers' offensive style, in which players stand and watch O'Neal go one-on-one much of the time, doesn't leave players in position for offensive rebounds. And if their guards get beat on defense the big men have to give help, which often takes them out of rebounding position if a shot is missed. As the coaches always say, rebounding has to be a team concern.

    Question: Is Reggie Miller going to participate in the 3-point contest at the All-Star break? (Michele from Denver, Colo.)

    Answer: No. I don't know if he was asked, but even if he was I doubt he would want to participate. He likes to have that week off.

    Question: Why all the DNP (coach's decision) for Austin Croshere lately? (Scott from Auburn, Ind.)

    Answer: Croshere missed two games with a bad case of the flu and hasn't been at full strength. Lately, when Jonathan Bender has been available, they have used him, which usually doesn't leave time for Croshere to play.
    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 01-31-05

    <---- essential element in any MM Q&A

    Comment

    Working...
    X