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

Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

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

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

    NFL OPERATIONS GUIDE, Rule 2, Section 1: The referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with specifications and the balls remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.

    One exceedingly simple explanation is that under-inflated balls were submitted by the Patriots for inspection. The ref checked a couple of them, saw 11 psi instead of 12.5 psi, and thought "no big deal" and they were not inflated to specs. He is the sole judge as to whether the balls are OK or not.

    Aaron Rodgers has said that sometimes the ref does not bother to take air out over-inflated balls, so obviously at least some refs are lackadaisical about checking. Some refs, and some players we have heard from, likely think that an 11 psi ball rather than a 13 psi ball is indeed "no big deal".

    When the Colts complained, though, the refs discussed it and decided that maybe it was a concern, hence the complete halftime check.

    The very odd thing about it being brought up as being an issue in the regular season game at Lucas Oil Stadium is that in articles that I have seen today, it has been asserted that the home team provides both ball attendants. This would mean that either: 1) the Pats convinced a guy that normally works for the Colts to take air out of balls on the sidelines; or 2) In that case as well, under-inflated balls were submitted for inspection. The ref checked a couple of them, saw a low value and thought "no big deal" so they were not inflated to specs.

    The ref might be in "CYA" mode and be reluctant to admit not checking thoroughly, but until the NFL actually says something, who knows?

    Submitting under-inflated balls would be wrong and punishable, but it would simply be a whole lot easier to pull off than deflating 12 balls to a near-equal amount, secretly, while on the sidelines, while the NFL is also looking for evidence of this happening due to a previous complaint.
    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!).

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Are we really comparing grass (both teams still have to play on the same grass even if one decides to screw with it) to the doctoring of the actual footballs supplied by one side??
      If the other team had, say Adrian Peterson playing in his prime, and you at the time were trotting out, say, Trent Richardson at running back, would dramatically slowing down the field affect both teams equally? That would be a way bigger difference than the 1.5% difference in grip strength that results from using an under-inflated ball, as measured by Sports Science.

      Doctoring the grass isn't theoretical. It is practically standard practice in baseball when your power-laden team hosts a small ball/ speed team. You mow the grass high and water it down heavily.
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-22-2015, 12:24 AM.
      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!).

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        If the other team had, say Adrian Peterson playing in his prime, and you at the time were trotting out, say, Trent Richardson at running back, would dramatically slowing down the field affect both teams equally? That would be a way bigger difference than the 1.5% difference in grip strength that results from using an under-inflated ball, as measured by Sports Science.

        doctoring the grass isn't theoretical. It is practically standard practice in baseball when your power-laden team hosts a small ball/ speed team
        As long as things are within the normal standards and/or as prescribed by the rules, then I'd call that simply homefield advantage.
        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


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          NFL OPERATIONS GUIDE, Rule 2, Section 1: The referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with specifications and the balls remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.

          One exceedingly simple explanation is that under-inflated balls were submitted by the Patriots for inspection. The ref checked a couple of them, saw 11 psi instead of 12.5 psi, and thought "no big deal" and they were not inflated to specs. He is the sole judge as to whether the balls are OK or not.

          Aaron Rodgers has said that sometimes the ref does not bother to take air out over-inflated balls, so obviously at least some refs are lackadaisical about checking. Some refs, and some players we have heard from, likely think that an 11 psi ball rather than a 13 psi ball is indeed "no big deal".

          When the Colts complained, though, the refs discussed it and decided that maybe it was a concern, hence the complete halftime check.

          The very odd thing about it being brought up as being an issue in the regular season game at Lucas Oil Stadium is that in articles that I have seen today, it has been asserted that the home team provides both ball attendants. This would mean that either: 1) the Pats convinced a guy that normally works for the Colts to take air out of balls on the sidelines; or 2) In that case as well, under-inflated balls were submitted for inspection. The ref checked a couple of them, saw a low value and thought "no big deal" so they were not inflated to specs.

          The ref might be in "CYA" mode and be reluctant to admit not checking thoroughly, but until the NFL actually says something, who knows?

          Submitting under-inflated balls would be wrong and punishable, but it would simply be a whole lot easier to pull off than deflating 12 balls to a near-equal amount, secretly, while on the sidelines, while the NFL is also looking for evidence of this happening due to a previous complaint.
          Your post is the equivalent of "yeah, I was doing 70 in a 55, but the cops didn't pull me over for speeding. I didn't get stopped, so no big deal." No dude, you were still speeding.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

            not that I think it'll happen or anything, but just to get on record before any ruling (which again, isn't coming til after the Super Bowl) should the Pats get DQ'ed (they aren't, and shouldn't) give it to the Ravens.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              At this point, I view this situation just like a PED violation. There should be a four game suspension of any players or coaches that are involved...
              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                1st rounder and a huge fine, that's probably definitely gonna happen. Belichick maybe suspended the first 4 games of next year or something, but they're not issuing any punishment until the Super Bowl's over, believe that.
                I agree that nothing will be announced until after the Super Bowl. However, if I'm an owner or the commish, I say this is another huge disregard of the rules and sportsmanship by the Patriots; and enough is enough. And, it involves the same administration/management as the previous wrong doing.

                So this time, it's time to send a message to not only the Patriots, but to all teams. Give them the equivalent of the NCAA's harsher penalty. You can't give them the "death" penalty, so instead do the following:

                - Forfeit all 2015 draft picks
                - Render an additional $25M of their salary cap unusable for the coming season.
                - Indefinitely suspend Belichek for a term of at least 2 years. Return at commish's discretion afterwards.
                - Possibly, forfeit 2016 draft picks for round 6 and lower.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                  - Forfeit all 2015 draft picks
                  - Render an additional $25M of their salary cap unusable for the coming season.
                  - Indefinitely suspend Belichek for a term of at least 2 years. Return at commish's discretion afterwards.
                  - Possibly, forfeit 2016 draft picks for round 6 and lower.
                  For partially deflated footballs? Damn that's harsh

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    John Madden speaks out

                    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ted-footballs/

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      The scariest thing is this was on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and each network agreed this was cheating. If you can get all of these folks to agree you know you're in deep ****.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                        In baseball it's called doctoring the ball and the pitcher is often thrown out of the game and then IIRC suspended. It does alter the outcome of the game but just because nothing would have helped the colts doesn't mean it's an insignificant infraction of the rules.

                        The infraction was that someone had altered the balls after the refs supposedly took control of the footballs so that crossed the line as to the infraction. It wasn't as if the pats brought in 11 underinflated balls and no one noticed.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Don't ever watch SportsCenter, but this morning was an exception.

                          They said the Colts tipped off the NFL after the wk11 game they thought something was funny about the footballs. Like I said yesterday, I don't trust the NFL to act promptly. If they received reports from 2mons ago about the Pats doing this, then why in the F didn't they check the balls before the game? (Every game) If they did check the balls, then the NFL should throw the book at the Pats. That would mean the Pats deliberately tried to hide it from the NFL. If the NFL tested them, saw they were underinflated, and didn't care. That's a whole different can of worms. I don't know what would be the proper course of action. Maybe suing the NFL. I don't know if it would be anti-trust laws, but having rules and not enforcing them, gives a competitive advantage to one team.

                          They (ESPN) also ran a "test" with Jerome Bettis and Mark Brunell. ESPN gave them three footballs for Brunell to throw to Bettis, one being good, one being overinflated, one being underinflated. Both Brunell and Bettis correctly identified each, and they said it wasn't even close to being confusing. Brunell said the extra grip would allow him to throw the ball further, and be more accurate.

                          They also said that backup footballs were brought in for the second half.

                          I personally think Belicheat should be suspended for the SuperBowl. Suspending him for the first games of next season, is a slap on the wrist. Put them at a disadvantage in their biggest most important game of the season, since that's what the Pats did against the Colts and probably against the Ravens.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                            Press conference on ESPN now

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              "I have no explanation for what happened."

                              Sure Bill ...............

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                                Taking the Obama route. "I didn't know anything until the news told me." That, in itself, should be a fine. Next he'll go all Pontius Pilate and carry out a wash basin to wash his hands.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X