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:
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

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

Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

    Yet, I remain unsurprised.

  • #2
    Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    I'm going to wait until more facts are brought to light, plus it's not as bad as pumping in fake crowd noise...
    Edit Signature


    • #3
      Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

      Pathetic. I really hope the Patriots have a good explanation for this. It did seem like the Pats were picking up the blitz unusually well all game...but I was hoping that was more due to the fact that the Patriots offensive line had improved in the offseason.

      With that said, it is no surprise that this happened against the Jets. The Patriots as an organization despise the Jets and it goes vice versa.


      • #4
        Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

        Here's a story for you from Peter King's Monday Morning QB article.

        3. I think the most overplayed story of Week 1 was the subterfuge angle of former players spilling the beans to the enemy. Just like Jason David's information on the Indy offense meant nothing to New Orleans' defense in the Colts' 41-10 beatdown of the Saints, the importation of former Patriot Reche Caldwell for a look-see and the Patriots bringing in ex-Jets Tim Dwight and Bobby Hamilton (on the QT Friday) meant nothing to the outcome of the Patriots' win over the Jets. Maybe the Jets learned a scintilla about the physical condition of Randy Moss -- maybe -- but as far as strategy or signals or audible signs ... fiction.

        "It's the most overrated thing in sports,'' said Peyton Manning, who went on to give me a great example of how a foreign agent can actually hurt a team's preparation. "The classic was when we're playing Cleveland and they got [former Colts backup quarterback and offensive assistant] Kelly Holcomb and Bruce Arians. It's Tony Dungy's first year, maybe 2002. So the Browns grill Holcomb all week, 'You got to give us something' and he says, 'I'm telling you, Peyton's going to change it up. He knows I'm here, he's going to give you a dummy audible early. I'm telling you, he's not stupid. So, just play your keys.'

        "They're up 16-3, I think, at the half," said Manning. "Second half, we get a good drive going and it's fourth-and-three. So we run our bread and butter play, a little five-yard under route. Well, I signal the play and Holcomb -- it's the same signal -- so he says, 'Ah, now I'm going to help them.' So he says, 'They're running the five-yard under play! Five-yard under play!"

        "And so you can see it on the film -- they're going, 'Watch the slants, watch the slants.' So they load up, all inside technique, and they go into a man defense. Well, I see this and I see the defenders all change up -- that's the thing about the no-huddle, I can see this -- and I kept the receivers doing the same thing and I checked to a zone running play and it's only six guys who gotta know -- the linemen and the back [James Mungro]. And he goes 29 yards untouched for a touchdown. And so their guys go to Holcomb, all pissed off, 'So, they're running a slant, huh? Thanks a freaking lot, Holcomb.'
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie


        • #5
          Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

          Also investigating some radio frequency issues, hmmmm. . . The amazing intuition of their defense in all those playoff games comes into real question now, when they always just happened to get a jump on all our plays and were always praised for the amazing abililty to have players in the right position. After reading about how Bellichick treated Ted Johnson when he had all those brain concussions, nothing would suprise me regarding his breaking the rules of decency or the NFL in order to win.

          Someone is seriously comparing this to some alleged crowd noise fabrication which everyone knows was a figment of one of Ben Rottenliesburger's acid flashbacks?


          • #6
            Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

            Didn't they have a similar situation against the Dolphins last year as well?

            I'll wait to see what develops before jumping to conclusions.

            Could put an * around all this dynasty talk if found guilty


            • #7
              Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

              Wow, this is pretty serious actually.
              "It's not their first time," a member of the committee, who did not wish to be identified, said.

              In fact, Green Bay Packers president Bob Harlan confirmed a similar incident that occurred when the Patriots played at Lambeau Field last Nov. 19. The same cameraman who was questioned by NFL security on Sunday was also the one whom the Packers removed from the sideline and escorted from the field during their 2006 game, according to Packers security official Doug Collins. "From what I can remember, he had quite a fit when we took him out," Harlan said. "We had gotten word before the game that they [the Patriots] did this sort of thing, so we were looking for it."
              Big difference between asking an ex-player and using technology to steal or spy.


              • #8
                Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
                I'm going to wait until more facts are brought to light, plus it's not as bad as pumping in fake crowd noise...
                You can't be serious, can you?

                The fake crowd noise was alleged by a hack reporter, I believe. And, maybe Big Ben.

                Are you really comparing possible spying to a fake story about crowd noise?

                Seriously? If you are, then you lose all credibility.

                on your part.


                • #9
                  Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                  Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                  You can't be serious, can you?

                  The fake crowd noise was alleged by a hack reporter, I believe. And, maybe Big Ben.

                  Are you really comparing possible spying to a fake story about crowd noise?

                  Seriously? If you are, then you lose all credibility.

                  on your part.
                  You actually think he's being serious?

                  Granted you can't read sarcasm through text but I can bet you he's not being serious.
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions


                  • #10
                    Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                    Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                    You can't be serious, can you?

                    The fake crowd noise was alleged by a hack reporter, I believe. And, maybe Big Ben.

                    Are you really comparing possible spying to a fake story about crowd noise?

                    Seriously? If you are, then you lose all credibility.

                    on your part.
                    Edit Signature


                    • #11
                      Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                      Originally posted by Moses View Post
                      The Patriots as an organization despise the Jets and it goes vice versa.
                      This is what makes me think that just MAYBE the Jets arranged some type of setup. They are absolutely ticked off at the Patrots after the Pats charged them with tampering last year, demanding (but not getting) draft picks.

                      There could be an element of payback going on, or maybe some Pats guy was trying to seroiusly annoy the Jets coaches.

                      It's unlikely that recording possible signals helped them much in Sundays game. Did they record them, use some universal remote to freeze time (the movie "Clicker"), analyze the tape, figure out the signal, then restart the space-time continuum and let the Pats coachs know what was coming?

                      Then they used this information to make the Jets miss tackles, make penalties, and on offense drop balls.

                      If they were cheating, it was to find something to use in the later rematch game.

                      Make no mistake, if they did this then it is very wrong and they should be punished severely.

                      Also, since Belichick is God, he is already all-knowing, so he knew what was coming anyway.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


                      • #12
                        Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                        Absolutely no one around here is shocked and they generally assume the Pats cheat as much as possible every game. It's only wrong if you get caught!


                        • #13
                          Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                          Belichick has always been a dick. Dick.
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.


                          • #14
                            Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                            here is a link to a blog with a picture of the guy doing it... the picture is hella big, otherwise i'd post it here.


                            if you click on it you can see a guy with a camera circled
                            This is the darkest timeline.


                            • #15
                              Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                              You mean the guy was on Jets sidelines? I thought he was taking from the Pats sidelines

                              And Goodell has determined that the Patsies need some punishments

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