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

What's the deal with the Monta hating?

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

  • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    given some of the ridiculous reports of lesser players get much more than 10 to 12 mill per year.
    And this is exactly why I inserted myself in this discussion about Monta's contract in the first place. Those players that get these kinds of crazy contracts right now may not be as good as Monta is but they're not exactly lesser players either. They have something that a GM can sell their fanbase on. They're either young players that have potential or they have a skillset that fits today's NBA (stretch bigs, rim protecting/rebounding bigs, 3 & D players, deadeye shooters et cetera). In some cases, they are both.

    That's why those kind of contracts aren't a big surprise to me. The majority of the players that are getting overpaid right now are either young dudes or players that fit the direction the league is going. Monta is neither. He may be a better player than a lot of those players that are gonna earn more money than him but GMs are going away from the style of basketball that Monta plays.

    He's good value for us at 10-11 mil. I never said otherwise and I will never say otherwise. But that doesn't mean that a GM would give him 15 mil if he was a FA this year.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      And this is exactly why I inserted myself in this discussion about Monta's contract in the first place. Those players that get these kinds of crazy contracts right now may not be as good as Monta is but they're not exactly lesser players either. They have something that a GM can sell their fanbase on. They're either young players that have potential or they have a skillset that fits today's NBA (stretch bigs, rim protecting/rebounding bigs, 3 & D players, deadeye shooters et cetera). In some cases, they are both.

      That's why those kind of contracts aren't a big surprise to me. The majority of the players that are getting overpaid right now are either young dudes or players that fit the direction the league is going. Monta is neither. He may be a better player than a lot of those players that are gonna earn more money than him but GMs are going away from the style of basketball that Monta plays.

      He's good value for us at 10-11 mil. I never said otherwise and I will never say otherwise. But that doesn't mean that a GM would give him 15 mil if he was a FA this year.
      Stretch bigs, yes they fit today's NBA. Rim protectors though?...nah. They are nice sometimes, but nobody starting is stuck in the paint anymore.

      Comment


      • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Stretch bigs, yes they fit today's NBA. Rim protectors though?...nah. They are nice sometimes, but nobody starting is stuck in the paint anymore.
        Tell that to the Warriors who might be back to back Champs if Bogut didn't go down

        Comment


        • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

          He's good value for us at 10-11 mil. I never said otherwise and I will never say otherwise. But that doesn't mean that a GM would give him 15 mil if he was a FA this year.
          Well we wont know that either way but the prevailing thought is that monta is a net negative on this team and should be traded. To me I think its short sighted and stupid since he had a knee injury last year and many posters here seem to think its comparable to a DG knee injury that cost him his career. Those same posters will shine the %&#&@ and tell us how bird isnt loyal to pacer players since he trades one DG with bad knees. Monta had an injury and he still played the second most in minutes. He still has the respect of our players and the fans can't get off their lazy boy and recognize that. Sorry if I think some entitled geezers are full of it.

          Comment


          • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Stretch bigs, yes they fit today's NBA. Rim protectors though?...nah. They are nice sometimes, but nobody starting is stuck in the paint anymore.
            Players like Bogut, Ezeli, Biyombo and Steven Adams are very valuable in today's NBA. The ability to protect the rim and rebound the basketball is something that will never be out of place in the NBA. It's true that rim protectors have to also be mobile right now but they're still paid for their ability to protect the rim and rebound.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

              That's the first time I've heard Monta's supposed injury being compared to Danny's condition. Danny's situation was a degenerative situation that took got worse and worse over time. Is there a reason for this comparison (a report or something) or is this an assumption.

              I thought he simply had his knee scoped in the offseason. That's not an atypical procedure for professional athletes

              Comment


              • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                Players like Bogut, Ezeli, Biyombo and Steven Adams are very valuable in today's NBA. The ability to protect the rim and rebound the basketball is something that will never be out of place in the NBA. It's true that rim protectors have to also be mobile right now but they're still paid for their ability to protect the rim and rebound.
                Like Roy eh? Or better yet Ian. Both are examples of how you are wrong. Rim protectors alone aren't getting paid huge bucks unless they provide another skill set. Probably only Jordan is the highest paid guy and you wont find many others that support your point. Most are offensive skilled big men like Mark Gasol.

                Comment


                • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                  Biyombo, Ian, Robin Lopez Joakim Noah are examples of Rim protecting bigs that will be (or currently are) getting paid solely for their ability to protect the rim and be a presence inside

                  Comment


                  • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                    Ace many posters have used the line of reasoning to question Bird and why we shouldn't rely on Minta. The argument is that he is 30 and has bad knees etc. I agree with you that smal scopes are no big deal bit some posters would like everyone to believe that Monta is closer to being done in the NBA due to his knees. I call BS on that.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                      I have no idea how this thread got so effed up. Who the hell cares whether Monta has a "value" contract or not, whatever the hell that is. The thread is about why all the Monta hating... in other words, why do we dislike him. When it comes to disliking "a player", for me it is rarely the "person", but instead how that person plays and approaches the game.

                      I've already stated some of those issues that I have regarding Ellis's game. But, let's look at the big picture for a moment. Most of us would state that with the addition of Teague and TYoung, even considering the loss of GHill, the Pacers are a much-improved team. We have needs on our roster, and we have "x" remaining dollars to fill those needs.

                      Now let's look at what our roles probably are going into next season.
                      C - Turner
                      PF - T Young
                      SF - George
                      PG - Teague
                      SG - ? Possibilities Ellis, Stuckey, Miles

                      Teague replaces Ellis as the primary ball-handler, distributor and driver of the ball. This is a role that Ellis has had for 10 years when he has been on the floor. That role probably maximizes Ellis's game because it maximizes his effectiveness at scoring. I conclude that having Teague and Ellis both in the starting line-up is not desirable because both are far more effective with the ball primarily in their own hands. Therefore, because Teague was obviously acquired to run our starting offense, then our starting unit would benefit from a player at SG that can be an effective and efficient scorer without needing the ball to be primarily under his control. This would indicate that, if indeed Ellis would have a role on this team, it would require him to come off the bench.

                      I would hope that the vast majority of us can agree up to that point.

                      With the above in mind, I question whether the dollars being spent on Ellis could not be better spent elsewhere on ore needs. For example, an alternative starting SG, a better fit than Ellis while also being an improvement over Stuckey or Miles. Or, perhaps we could find a very good stretch-4 to complement TYoung.

                      We have needs, I just think that our team might be vastly improved if the dollars spent on Ellis we allocated elsewhere.

                      If Bird and Pritchard agree with this, and Ellis truly is a desirable commodity within the league on a reasonable contract following the 2016 adjustment in the cap, then I believe we will see him moved.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                        Biyombo got paid like what. 2.5 mill last year. He will get paid because he made Lebron look like a tool but before this year he was trash and paid like it.
                        And Robin Lopez was so valuable that he was traded to a coach who thought it was his much better brother Brook.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 06-30-2016, 10:06 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                          Well we wont know that either way but the prevailing thought is that monta is a net negative on this team and should be traded. To me I think its short sighted and stupid since he had a knee injury last year and many posters here seem to think its comparable to a DG knee injury that cost him his career. Those same posters will shine the %&#&@ and tell us how bird isnt loyal to pacer players since he trades one DG with bad knees. Monta had an injury and he still played the second most in minutes. He still has the respect of our players and the fans can't get off their lazy boy and recognize that. Sorry if I think some entitled geezers are full of it.
                          I don't know what I said that ticked you off but I have the feeling that your reply (and especially the entitled geezers part) is not exactly directed to me. So, I'll focus on your first sentence which in my opinion is your most important point (and also the key to the misunderstanding that people in this thread seem to be having).

                          I don't think that there is anyone who believes that Monta is a net negative on this team. They just believe that he's not a good fit for our starting lineup. Take Dr. Awesome for example. He is the first person to admit that he doesn't like Monta's game and he said earlier that he'd have no issue with Monta being a 6th man. He just doesn't like him as a starter. I feel that a lot of people in thos forum share a similar mindset.

                          And here's why people believe that Monta isn't a good fit for the starting lineup:

                          Monta is a ball-dominant player. The same goes for Paul George. Our recent acquisition, Jeff Teague, is a ball-dominant player as well. So, a starting backcourt of Teague/Monta/PG would already struggle with touches before even starting to consider the touches that Myles and Thad would get through the course of the game (since both Myles and Thad are adept in scoring). Simply put, you cannot have too many ball-dominant players in the same lineup. When you do it then the lineup simply isn't going to work. It's why the Spurs have brought Manu Ginobili off the bench ever since 2011. It's why James Harden was never a starter in OKC. Having too many ball-dominant players in the same lineup just means that you cannot get the most out of every single one of them.

                          Just look at what happened last season. George Hill and Monta Ellis weren't able to play well off of each other and George Hill is one of the least ball-dominant PGs out there. What do you think it's going to happen when you replace GH with a more ball-dominant PG in Jeff Teague? The chances of a Teague/Monta pairing working well are slim. Teague is an important player for us since he can be a member of our future core (just turned 28 so he still has 2-3 good years in him) so we need to accomodate him. Teague in Atlanta was in an very PG-friendly system that gave him the green light to have the ball in his hands and create for others while supporting him with shooters and PnR/PnP bigs. If we want Teague to succeed in Indiana then we cannot take the ball away from him. Teague will already have to share the ball with PG (he's our star, he'll get his shots, nothing we can do about it). Adding another ball-dominant player in the mix isn't an option, imo.

                          So, no, I don't believe that Monta is a net negative. He has value and he can help a team win. I just believe that with our roster his skillset is a better fit for a 6th man than a starting SG. As a starting SG, I'd like to see a player who moves the ball, plays D and shoot 3s. Imagine someone like a Thabo Sefolosha or a DeMarre Carroll. Our offense should be run through PG and Teague.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            Like Roy eh? Or better yet Ian. Both are examples of how you are wrong. Rim protectors alone aren't getting paid huge bucks unless they provide another skill set. Probably only Jordan is the highest paid guy and you wont find many others that support your point. Most are offensive skilled big men like Mark Gasol.
                            Roy is honestly a strange case. I didn't watch enough Laker games to know why his numbers were so low this season. But yeah, Ian is a good example of what I'm talking about. He'll get paid this season. I expect him to get a contract upwards of 10 mil per.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                              Ace many posters have used the line of reasoning to question Bird and why we shouldn't rely on Minta. The argument is that he is 30 and has bad knees etc. I agree with you that smal scopes are no big deal bit some posters would like everyone to believe that Monta is closer to being done in the NBA due to his knees. I call BS on that.
                              I don't think he's done. I haven't seen many that have gone that far, but I probably missed it. I just think his days of being a main cog in a team. He would be more than fine as a 6th man. But I don't think he's quite as good if he's a starter for your team. He needs to be too involved offensively.

                              Even if he gets closer to his former self(big if) I still think he's best served as a scorer off the bench than a starting 2guard.

                              I believe that's the same feeling that most posters have as well

                              Comment


                              • Re: What's the deal with the Monta hating?

                                I appreciate your post but i think Bird will stick to his guns and use Monta in the starting lineup. I already gave a reason of why I think it will work and I think all the complaining over the lack of fit is premature given we haven't even reached FA yet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X