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

Official Soccer Thread

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

  • #16
    Re: World Cup Draw

    1 : Pollardfreek is right about Ivory Coast, they are a dark horse, one of the best if not the best African countries.
    2: Holland will not go anywhere, they have not even placed themselves for the worldcup, it is not a worldcup for provinces, but for countries, henceforth "the Netherlands" is representing that country, since there are a lot of players on that team that are not born of live in the province of "holland" there is no justification for calling them that.
    3. Netherlands should and will most likely get to the final, and no the Dutch have never been ousted in the groupstages, if we were there the quarter-finals was the very least of our results.
    4. Argentina has a lot more to overcome then the Dutch, or the Serbs for that matter, it is well known that South American countries do not perform well when the WC is in Europe.
    5. English team is plain bad, however hte Engliush (as they always do) think they are the best in the world, just as they still think they rule it, i leave 'm in that state of mind and just chuckle whenever they loose yet another game/sport. Yes you are right, I chuckle a lot.

    Finally; no predictions from me, not before we are one week before the start and I know what all the friendly results are
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: World Cup Draw

      Kezman is going to own the World Cup, too bad we ended up in the best group.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: World Cup Draw

        Originally posted by Jermaniac
        Kezman is going to own the World Cup, too bad we ended up in the best group.
        I hope and think he'll do better than at his debut at a major international tournament






        Regards,

        Mourning
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: World Cup Draw

          btown, there's a howto for US citizens at www.fifa.com
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: World Cup Draw

            Could a mod please change this to "the soccer thread"? With Champions League and domestic leagues heating up, I think there will be a lot of non world cup discussion. Like, oh, I don't know, Benfica stomping Liverpool today.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: World Cup Draw

              Barcelona's the team to beat now in the CL.

              Damn that last game against Chelsea was boring.
              Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
              Bum in Berlin on Myspace

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Official Soccer Thread

                If Del Horno doesnt get the red card in the first game Chelsea wins.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Official Soccer Thread

                  Originally posted by Jermaniac
                  If Del Horno doesnt get the red card in the first game Chelsea wins.
                  Well, we'll never know about that. I don't think he should've gotten red for that one challenge, but he certainly deserved a yellow card (what a dumb challenge it was btw). Together with his previous challenge where he hit Messi's knee very bad and he also should've gotten a yellow card at least, that also gives him the red anyway.

                  But Chelsea certainly wasn't strong enough to worry Barca in the second game. I didn't understand Mourinho's coaching at all. They had to score twice in that game so you'd expect them to be fired up and pressure Barcelone from the first whistle, but no, they just let Barca play their passing game. Or maybe they just couldn't do better. And you can't blame Barca for not being ultra offensive cause that's what's killed them last year against Chelsea: 3 counters, 3 times bingo, 3-0 after 20 minutes of play.

                  Also Mourinho's substitutions: you'd expect him to bring on one extra striker, but no, it was just striker for striker, Crespo for Drogba. And then at the end he brings in Robert Huth, a defender to play target man striker (he could've just let Drogba in, right?). Btw I really don't understand Huth's playing for one of the best teams in Europe. The man has no technique whatsoever.
                  Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                  Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Official Soccer Thread

                    Benfica-Barca is going to be the premiere matchup in the quarters.

                    ---------------------------

                    http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL...203/index.html

                    Iberian duel for Barça and Benfica
                    Friday, 10 March 2006

                    FC Barcelona and SL Benfica will meet in a mouthwatering UEFA Champions League quarter-final – a tie which is a repeat of the 1960/61 European Champion Clubs' Cup final and which sees former Barça star Ronald Koeman take his current team back to his old club.

                    Favourites' tag
                    The reigning champions of Spain and Portugal have proud European traditions, not least having lifted the famous trophy once and twice respectively. After disposing of Chelsea FC, Barcelona are many people's favourites to go all the way to the 17 May final in Paris, and Frank Rijkaard's side will get to play the second leg at the Camp Nou on 5 April after first travelling to the Estádio da Luz on 28 March.

                    'Great draw'
                    Benfica coach Koeman, who captained the Catalan outfit to European Cup glory in 1992, gave the following reaction: "It is a great draw for us, and very special for me personally because of the happy years I spent at Barcelona. I've already received phone calls from the many friends that I left there and that's nice. Barcelona have a history of success and have a very good team."

                    Difficult task
                    José Veiga, the Eagles' general manager, added: "Barcelona are one of the greatest European teams, if not the greatest. However, with just eight teams left in the competition we cannot afford to pick our opponents. It will be very difficult but sometimes things aren't as hard as they seem. I believe we can go through to the semi-finals because we have a great side."

                    'Passionate tie'
                    Barcelona goalkeeper Víctor Valdés said: "They are a proper team and they will not be easy opponents. They had a tough tie in the last round, but didn't concede a goal against Liverpool [FC] and won well at Anfield. They deserve as much respect as we do. It will be a passionate tie. You can't say they aren't a big team and they must be good because they are in the quarter-finals."

                    First meeting
                    In that 1960/61 showpiece, the Lisbon club's 3-2 victory meant they became the first side other than Real Madrid CF to win the competition, although it was Barcelona who had the pleasure of eliminating the then five-time winners in the first round. The final, played in Berne, was also the teams' very first meeting in UEFA competition.

                    Significant contest
                    It was Barça who prevailed the next, and only other, time the clubs were drawn together, in the group stage that immediately preceded the final of 1991/92 tournament. Barcelona earned a 0-0 draw in Portugal before a 2-1 home success. The four points taken from those encounters were to prove pivotal as Barcelona ultimately claimed the trophy for the first time, with a 1-0 victory against UC Sampdoria. Koeman scored the only goal in extra time.

                    Poor record
                    Benfica do not have a particularly impressive record in Spain, having played there on six occasions and won just once. That sole triumph was a 2-1 defeat of Real Betis Balompié in the 1982/83 UEFA Cup first round. In the third round of the same competition in the 1999/00 campaign, Benfica suffered their heaviest loss in UEFA competition, succumbing 7-0 at RC Celta de Vigo. Against Spanish visitors, Benfica have lost only once, however – 1-0 at the hands of Villarreal CF in this season's group stage.

                    Imperious form
                    Meanwhile, Barcelona have shown imperious form at home against Portuguese opposition. After losing their first match against guests from their neighbouring country in the 1972/73 UEFA Cup, 1-0 to FC Porto, Barça have won eight games in a row, keeping clean sheets in five of them. The Catalan side have not fared so well across the border, losing four and drawing two of their first six outings. However, they have prevailed on their last two trips to Portugal, most recently a 2-0 success at Porto in the 1999/00 European Cup second group stage.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Official Soccer Thread

                      No, man, Benfica doesn't stand a chance.

                      Seriously I think Arsenal-Juve is the biggest match-up.
                      Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                      Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Official Soccer Thread

                        I like the Barca Benfica clash better.

                        Juve vs Arsenal is bound to be boring as hell.

                        Regards,

                        Mourning
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Official Soccer Thread

                          Originally posted by Mourning
                          I like the Barca Benfica clash better.

                          Juve vs Arsenal is bound to be boring as hell.
                          That could well be.

                          But Barca-Benfica is also a bit predictable: Barca with the ball possession, Benfica lurking on the counter, and eventually Barca will find a hole in the defense.

                          Why are CL games so predictable lately? Take for instance Inter-Ajax from next week (Ajax-Inter was 2-2). Inter won't attack, cause they don't have to. Ajax will be too scared too attack from the first minutes, so they'll wait until the last 15. And by then Inter will either have scored already or they'll score on the counter in the last 15.

                          I hope I'm wrong.

                          Lyon-Milan should be an interesting clash, but they'll probably show Arsenal-Juve on TV.
                          Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                          Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Official Soccer Thread

                            Originally posted by Jermaniac
                            If Del Horno doesnt get the red card in the first game Chelsea wins.
                            Hey man you are american, how do you know about soccer?!?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Official Soccer Thread

                              Who are those???
                              Trinidad and Tobago
                              Togo

                              B,C and E are tough groups.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Official Soccer Thread

                                Originally posted by Lithfan
                                Hey man you are american, how do you know about soccer?!?
                                He is of Serbian origin if I am not mistaken, correct me if am wrong "Germ" .

                                Anyway, I am European and I know about basketball, so guess it doesn't really matter these days where you from if you search well you can get your fix of either basketball or soccer, either through Internet or if you are lucky through a tv-station.

                                Regards,

                                Mourning
                                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X