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

Anybody else heard about this crap?

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

  • Anybody else heard about this crap?

    http://www2.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127439

    It's also being discussed on the Colts.com message board.

    Obviously this is just a rumor!
    sigpic

    2007 Super Bowl XLI Champions!

  • #2
    Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

    Unless they consider 50+000 screaming fans to be artificial fans!
    sigpic

    2007 Super Bowl XLI Champions!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

      Yeah, we sure do.



      What morons.

      Fans that are crying about that, should take their loss and MOVE ON.
      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

        It's obvious ESPN is lying. The crowd noise was too loud to hear any fake crowd noise. Idiots.
        Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

          ESPN 950 touched on it.. Someone's arse is going down for this.

          The Colts Front Office once they have fully reviewed the transcript of the Show ... They are going to release a statement tomorrow .. of course stating that this is a bunch of ....

          Why Not Us ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

            They definitley do have this in Milwaukee for the Bucks. Definitley.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

              I thought it was fairly well-known that the Colts did this?

              Or maybe that was just back when they were bad.

              IndyToad
              Not some slick big-city lawyer

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                EXCUSES! wow it's just simple common sense. with or without electronic amplification anything would sound louder in closed space. they can take away PA systems in domes and open fields and the results would be the same. that's why concerts sound better in closed space.
                http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                  Well, I'd venture a guess this (crowd mics) has to do with the high definition televison broadcast that MNF uses.

                  Part of HD is the sound which is at minimum DD2.0 but can easily be DD5.1 (which I believe MNF is... if you have the equip to receive and decode the digital broadcast).

                  Dolby Digital 5.1 (DD5.1) is 3 front speakers (all separate), 2 rear speakers (again separate), and the .1 is the sub.

                  While ABC audio people could pump anything they want into those individual speakers, it seems rather obvious they'd want the crowd (and natural audio) to be the 'surround' sound. And they'd need mics for that. The more mics the better to capture a realistic ambience for the DD5.1 experience at home. Whether they'd bother to accurately capture the dome crowd, front to rear, or just randomly pipe in the audio to fill out the atmosphere at home, I don't know.

                  As for the dome micing and refeeding the sound into their rather insufficient house system... Uhhhhh... they wouldn't need to be nearly so obvious as what has been mentioned about these 'mystery mics'. And you'd only need one. Feed it mono into the system. It's not like stereo, or surround, or anything else is going to matter in the dome since it would be picking up and then supplementing existing crowd noise (and there'd be thousand of reflections anyway).

                  So while I can't say the dome doesn't regurgitate crowd noise, anyone who saw these mics and thinks THESE were for that is likely missing the boat. Or somebody way OVERSOLD Irsay on what was needed to feed the crowd noise back into the system..

                  -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, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                    This is so stupid. They can't disparage the record anymore ("They haven't beat anyone good") so someone came up with this stupid rumor.

                    Here's a thought - domes are louder than open stadiums... especially when they are filled to capacity and the fans are screaming their lungs out!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                      Well unless the noise acted as a 12th blocker, how do they explain Edge running their @sses over?
                      House Name: Pacers

                      House Sigil:



                      House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                        This is from the Colts board:

                        ESPN starts ruckus over Dome noise
                        Colts strongly deny radio report that team unfairly adds to clamor
                        By Mike Chappell
                        mike.chappell@indystar.com
                        December 1, 2005


                        How loud was the RCA Dome for Monday night's Steelers-Colts showdown? The noise still was reverberating two days later.
                        A hot topic on ESPN Radio's "The Dan Patrick Show'' Wednesday afternoon focused on the Colts allegedly enhancing the clamor in the Dome by piping in noise. The observation was made by ESPN reporter Ed Werder, who watched the Colts' 26-7 victory from the press box and shared his opinion on a Dallas radio show the following day.
                        The Colts were quick to refute the claim, which, if true, could be in violation of NFL rules. An NFL spokesman, Steve Alic, said the league is not investigating whether the Colts are illegally pumping up the volume.
                        In a written statement, the Colts categorically denied they "somehow 'piped in' or otherwise artificially enhanced the crowd noise'' during the Steelers game or at any other time.
                        "We are doing nothing wrong,'' senior executive vice president Pete Ward told The Star. "We've got the loudest stadium in the league, with the fans naturally providing that sound.''
                        Coach Tony Dungy called the accusations "an insult to our crowd. Our fans have been great. We don't need to pipe in noise.''
                        When reached Wednesday evening, Werder made the distinction that he hadn't "reported'' the noise issue but offered a "casual opinion on a radio show. I think there's a difference.''
                        Werder said Wednesday that the Colts play heavy bass noise through the RCA Dome public-address system to supplement the crowd noise, apparently in an attempt at disrupting the opposing quarterback's ability to communicate with the sideline and his teammates in the huddle.
                        On the Dallas radio show, Werder said he "mentioned that the Colts have won 10 straight games at home and that in addition to being fabulously talented, they also have the advantage that they create by playing this supplemental noise in addition to the actual crowd noise.''
                        Supplemental noise is permitted until the offense breaks the huddle. Teams can be disciplined for violating the league's policy on club-controlled stadium sound. In 2000, the Washington Redskins were fined $20,000 for using their PA system for cheerleading during a victory over Dungy's Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
                        Also, the home team is subject to a penalty if the officiating crew determines the crowd noise makes it impossible for the quarterback to adequately run his offense. If the crowd ignores warnings from the officials, the home team could lose a timeout or be assessed a 5-yard penalty.
                        At no time in Monday's game did Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger seek noise-control assistance from the officials.
                        Werder was surprised his comments stirred such a controversy.
                        "I just thought it was an innocent conversation on the radio, although obviously, there isn't any such thing,'' he said.
                        I had no idea that there was so such penalty.

                        http://forum.colts.com/showthread.php?t=3712&page=2

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                          I heard about it this morning on Bob and Tom. I couldn't imagine the outrage if the official addressed the crowd mid-game and told them to silence themselves while Tom Brady is leading his Offense.

                          Yet somehow, I cannot convince myself that it couldn't happen.
                          House Name: Pacers

                          House Sigil:



                          House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                            Originally posted by Believe_in_blue
                            This is from the Colts board:



                            I had no idea that there was so such penalty.

                            http://forum.colts.com/showthread.php?t=3712&page=2
                            Me eather Sounds kinda silly if you ask me. Makes ya wonder why it's not enforced!
                            sigpic

                            2007 Super Bowl XLI Champions!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Anybody else heard about this crap?

                              Originally posted by pacercoltfan
                              Me eather Sounds kinda silly if you ask me. Makes ya wonder why it's not enforced!
                              A few seasons back it would be enforced. The QB would turn to the zebras before the playclock expired and signal the crowd was too loud.

                              They would make an announcement for the crowd to quiet and I believe mention the potential penalties. You'd see the home team actually signalling for the crowd to quiet down (I think that pretty much satisfied the refs and I don't recall ever seeing a penalty given).

                              But I've not seen that in recent years. I kinda assumed the rule had went away. Maybe coaches decided it was a bad idea to stop play... a sign of weakness? Or maybe teams just worked on their silent snap counts, etc.

                              Dunno...

                              -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, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X