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 (and Deflategate discussion)

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    and the cheaters can't hear him because they've got rings stuck in their ears as Patrick Roy said (not in the context of cheating, but an all timer line). that. is. all. that. matters.

    you guys seriously take this stuff too seriously. I don't give a damn about the integrity of the game, sports have zero integrity past high school, if that. as long as whatever you're doing is meant to help you win and doesn't enhance the chances of injury, football specifically there, I flat out don't care.
    Hey if you want to watch a sport with no rules go for midget wrestling.

    All sports strive for rules that promote fair play because in the end that's what the majority of fans want or everyone would be like you and say, Hey what's the big deal? You are in the minority which is why you can't understand the reaction to it all but it's also why pathetic over reaching statements like everyone does it and look at the other HOF coach who cheated in the 80s are made. It's pathetic because it's a never ending justification of tilting the scales in your favor which is something a true great coach, player or GM shouldn't have to do.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

      Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
      If Brady lied, he is ****ed. With the Ray Rice thing aside, Roger Goodell has shown that he doesn't like liars. Hope Tommy Boy is prepared to sit a year if he lied to investigators.....
      He will get a one game suspension if that. Goodell waited soo long for this very reason. Waited till after the draft, after the Super Bowl, after anything of real consequence so I am not expecting much to be honest. This is the same commishner that burned evidence btw so I got my expectation meter set on disappointed.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        and the cheaters can't hear him because they've got rings stuck in their ears as Patrick Roy said (not in the context of cheating, but an all timer line). that. is. all. that. matters.

        you guys seriously take this stuff too seriously. I don't give a damn about the integrity of the game, sports have zero integrity past high school, if that. as long as whatever you're doing is meant to help you win and doesn't enhance the chances of injury, football specifically there, I flat out don't care.
        Actually I would argue not even HS either maybe little league.

        However overall I agree only because I don't believe there is one team out there that's 100% clean.

        As for this? Eh we knew they did it because they gained something out of it otherwise why go through that trouble. As you said we still got clobbered I mean really 45-7 I could understand the Ravens being more outraged because that game was close.

        I enjoy that this makes the Patriots, their fans and namely Brady look bad but that's about as far as it goes.

        There will be some faux moral outrage, a hefty fine then they will shrug their shoulders and move on from this.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          Hey if you want to watch a sport with no rules go for midget wrestling.

          All sports strive for rules that promote fair play because in the end that's what the majority of fans want or everyone would be like you and say, Hey what's the big deal? You are in the minority which is why you can't understand the reaction to it all but it's also why pathetic over reaching statements like everyone does it and look at the other HOF coach who cheated in the 80s are made. It's pathetic because it's a never ending justification of tilting the scales in your favor which is something a true great coach, player or GM shouldn't have to do.

          Ideally we all want to see teams with players on an even playing field but its not realistic either. I mean we've had players busted for PED's which is also considered cheating. In the MLB it matters(which I find laughable but I digress). Jerry Rice admitted to using Stickum that's an unfair advantage. List goes on.

          I know people want to believe that integrity matters in professional sports but if it really did the Pats wouldn't have been so successful all these years. To them it was worth it because they were winners.

          Now winners with a blemish but still they won. Which is all that really counts in sports.


          As for Lance, Sosa, Bonds etc being thought less off well a lot of these guys weren't well liked to begin with so this didn't really change much for them and well they lied about it.

          Andy Pettite used PED's and admitted to it I don't see anyone condemning him.
          Last edited by Basketball Fan; 05-06-2015, 11:38 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

            Well, Heisenberg has not returned so clearly we can deduce he lowered the air pressure in his football for testing and is now fielding contract offers from the NFL. Hopefully he signs one before they figure out he was using a deflated football!!!
            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 (and Deflategate discussion)

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              they lied about it.
              Brady had like a 30 minute press conference lying about this.
              #LanceEffect

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                Actually I would argue not even HS either maybe little league.

                However overall I agree only because I don't believe there is one team out there that's 100% clean.

                As for this? Eh we knew they did it because they gained something out of it otherwise why go through that trouble. As you said we still got clobbered I mean really 45-7 I could understand the Ravens being more outraged because that game was close.

                I enjoy that this makes the Patriots, their fans and namely Brady look bad but that's about as far as it goes.

                There will be some faux moral outrage, a hefty fine then they will shrug their shoulders and move on from this.
                That is why I have to laugh at anyone who thinks Brady will be suspended. The NFL will be "outraged" and fine him and Brady will shrug it off and everyone will move on. The NFL just is not going to suspend Brady when the Pats play in the leagues opening game and then a few weeks later play the Colts.

                I think at best we might get the NFL league supplying the game balls and do away with the teams bringing their own balls to play with.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  and the cheaters can't hear him because they've got rings stuck in their ears as Patrick Roy said (not in the context of cheating, but an all timer line). that. is. all. that. matters.

                  you guys seriously take this stuff too seriously. I don't give a damn about the integrity of the game, sports have zero integrity past high school, if that. as long as whatever you're doing is meant to help you win and doesn't enhance the chances of injury, football specifically there, I flat out don't care.
                  I Hope this doesn't come across mean spirited and is not meant to be, but if I personally get to the point you're talking about I no longer will be a fan. The idea it's sports entertainment only is a sure fire way for all professional sports to collapse. If the NFL or NBA came out today and said cheating is fine we're going to model our sport like professional wrestling it's over.
                  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 (and Deflategate discussion)

                    This is so funny to me.

                    The report paints a picture of McNally, who called himself “the deflator” in a 2014 text message to Jastremski, as entering a restroom (as seen on security-camera video) and being in there for 100 seconds before the title game. He lied about it when first asked by Wells’ investigators, and then said he used a urinal in a bathroom that has none.

                    http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/ted-we...-patriots-nfl/

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                      Facts:


                      1) The scientists hired to study the issue properly calculated the expected pressure drop that occurred due to temperature, assuming an inflation temperature and a halftime temperature. There result was the same that I gave you months ago, that footballs will lose 1.13 psi in pressure due to the temperature drop.


                      2) The officials measured the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs. Using one gauge they measured a drop of 1.39 psi. Using another gauge they measured 1.01 psi. Average: 1.20 psi.


                      3) We have no way of knowing which of the two gauges, used interchangeably, was used in the pregame analysis where the Patriots footballs were set to 12.5 psi. Based upon the fact that one gauge always reads 0.4 psi below the other one, and that we don't know which one (if either) was accurate, then the Patriots footballs, pregame, may TRULY have been set at anywhere in the range of 12.1-12.9 psi.


                      4) The officials measured the drop in pressure four of the Colts footballs. Using one gauge they measured a drop of 0.37 psi. Using another gauge they measured 0.56 psi.


                      5) The drop in pressure of the Colts footballs is thus inconsistent with the valid scientific prediction that footballs will lose 1.13 psi in pressure, just due to the temperature drop.


                      6) For some reason, the fact that the Colts footballs apparently did not obey the laws of physics has not, to this point, concerned anyone. It should. But it is easy to explain! The officials didn't even have time to test all of the Colts footballs because the 13-minute halftime was ending. The Colts footballs had been in the heated room for at least 10 minutes before they were ever tested. They warmed up, maybe halfway to room temperature, which would explain a measurement of about half of the drop that was expected: 1.13/2 = 0.515.


                      7) The Colts partly warmed-up footballs were used as the "control" for the earlier-analyzed Patriots footballs. A huge degree of importance was placed into the fact that the difference in the drop in pressure of the Colts footballs vs. the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs was statistically significant. The difference in the order in which the two groups of footballs were analyzed, as they were of course warming up toward room temperature, could fully account for this statistical significance, however.


                      8) The most puzzling evidence is the relatively higher variability of the Patriots footballs. That looks suspicious. But other possible explanations, such as that perhaps some footballs were used in a heavy downpour and some were not used at all, were never considered. They did not consider the "wet football factor" at all, for that matter.


                      9) Pressure gauges used by the refs varied in accuracy by about 0.4 psi. The Patriots footballs dropped in pressure in the range of 1.01-1.39 psi. This range encompasses the expected number, based only on temperature, of a 1.13 psi drop. The accuracy of the gauge is + 0.4, so saying that 1.13 is truly different than 1.20 (or even 1.39) is shaky at best. I do not see scientific grounds for saying that the Patriots footballs were, on average, outside of expected norms, just based upon the data provided.


                      Other evidence such as the text messages paint a clouded picture, but the scientific basis for such a serious accusation falls short of anywhere near the level of certainty that one would reasonably demand in order to issue a serious punishment, or any punishment at all for that matter.

                      Punish Brady because you are 50.1% sure and 49.9% unsure that he may have been "generally aware" that someone was doing something wrong? Please.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2015, 09:35 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 (and Deflategate discussion)

                        You just continue to make yourself look worse and worse and worse. Actually - it's pretty sad that you can't get on board with the rest of the world at this point.
                        Last edited by Peck; 05-07-2015, 01:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          Punish Brady because you are 50.1% sure and 49.9% unsure that he may have been "generally aware" that someone was doing something wrong? Please.
                          Where are you getting those percentages?
                          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 (and Deflategate discussion)

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            Facts:
                            Punish Brady because you are 50.1% sure and 49.9% unsure that he may have been "generally aware" that someone was doing something wrong? Please.
                            Slick, I do feel for you actually and other Pat fans as this is a tough pill to swallow. My argument is this however. If this went to trial the Patriots would not be found guilty, but not at the 49% unsure. More like one or two jurors out of twelve believing the Patriots are innocent at the other 10 going yeah they did it. Just because the Preponderance of Evidence says 50/49 doesn't mean that's the actual percentage shown.
                            Last edited by RWB; 05-07-2015, 09:51 AM.
                            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 (and Deflategate discussion)

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              Where are you getting those percentages?
                              The standard used (Preponderance of Evidence) in Wells investigation. If you ever have the time look up Preponderance of Evidence as it relates to sexual assault. Used so much in he said she said situations.
                              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 (and Deflategate discussion)

                                I don't have to refute squat. The report says it all.

                                I'd rather take at value something that people with access to those involved has come up with instead of a fan that blindly babbles about it all.

                                It happened. Not much more to say.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X