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

Indictment Brought Against Vick

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

  • #31
    Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

    Wow.

    If he did these things the dude will be banned forever. Roger Goodell will not let that dude in an NFL arena if he goes to prison for this and then gets out.

    I think that Goodell has gotten some heat for taking an innocent until proven guilty stance but he has to. Sure he threw the hammer down on Tank, Pacman, and Chris Henry but those are guys who seem to always be in trouble and he has to get rid of those jackasses.

    But man, the things that have been reported that these dogs have been put through is just sick and I really hope that someway and somehow it's not true. I really do.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

      Vick was already a trash NFL QB, if true about the dogs, he's trash as a person also.
      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

        Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
        Vick was already a trash NFL QB, if true about the dogs, he's trash as a person also.
        Ron Mexico is appalled that you would think he would knowingly spread a STD, or that he would hurt anyother living being in any other way.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

          As a resident of Atlanta, I can tell you that almost every Falcons fan I know hates Vick..and they hated him long before the dog charges even came up.

          To those saying that the Falcons should not have given up Shaub, you are crazy. To obtain two second round picks in addition to moving up two spots in the first round for your back-up quarterback...the Falcons still got the best of the deal, even if they are stuck with Bloey Harrington for a season.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

            If Schaub ends up being a quality QB then yes it is a terrible deal for Atlanta. With the parity in the NFL, the QB position is the difference between being a playoff team and sucking badly as the Falcons will no doubt be doing for the forseeable future.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

              Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
              If Schaub ends up being a quality QB then yes it is a terrible deal for Atlanta. With the parity in the NFL, the QB position is the difference between being a playoff team and sucking badly as the Falcons will no doubt be doing for the forseeable future.
              I disagree.

              2 2nd rounders as well as moving up 2 spots on your #1 pick for an unproven backup QB sounds like an outstanding deal to me. Even if Shaub does pan out, the Falcons got excellent value for him...especially when you consider Edge couldn't even fetch a 3rd round pick 2 years ago.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

                Originally posted by Pacersin2033 View Post
                They keep saying that Vick is one of the faces of the NFL, what are they talking about. I don't know anybody(I asked) who thinks of Vick when they think of the NFL, I got Peyton, TO(shudders), Brady, Brett Favre, a couple of McNabbs oddly, and a few other big name players.

                Do they just mean to the casual fans who are impressed by a running QB? From my experience experienced fans don't really care about running QBs

                Maybe it relates to this:

                http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...-jerseys_x.htm


                Top-selling NFL jerseys for 2005

                1. Randy Moss, WR, Raiders
                2. Michael Vick, QB, Falcons
                3. Tom Brady, QB, Patriots
                4. Donovan McNabb, QB, Eagles
                5. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers
                6. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers
                7. Byron Leftwich, QB, Jaguars
                8. Carnell Williams, RB, Bucs
                9. Jeremy Shockey, TE, Giants
                10. Tiki Barber, RB, Giants

                Granted in two years things have changed some (I can't find the same stats for 2006), but Vick has had a following
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

                  Vick is quite overrated, and I really don't care if he plays any more.If he does, then fine. If he doesn't, fine.

                  I guess you could say "I don't have a dog in this fight"










                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

                    LONG BEACH, CA - The Long Beach Armada of Los Angeles of California of the United States of North America including Barrow, Alaska announced today that they will not hold a bonfire of Michael Vick jerseys during the Michael Vick Animal Awareness Day on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 2:05p.m. due to logistic issues at Blair Field. Fans are still invited to turn in their Michael Vick t-shirts and jerseys for free tickets to the game and may then use those jerseys as pooper scoopers or wee-wee pads. On the heels of Michael Vick's indictment, baseball fans and their four-legged friends are invited to bring their pooch and sit in a special section at Blair Field.

                    Any fan who trades in a Michael Vick t-shirt or jersey at the box office will receive free admission to the game and a donation in their name will be made to Justin Rudd's Community Action Team ( C.A.T.), a 501c3 nonprofit that provides educational outreach and events to help inspire a better understanding of dogs, encourage responsible ownership practices, and offer practical adoption and rescue opportunities.


                    Operation Santa Paws will be on hand to collect donations for abused and abandoned animals currently in shelters and rescues. Fans who bring in pet toys, treats, and/or cleaning supplies will receive a free ticket to a future Armada game courtesy of Operation Santa Paws and the Long Beach Armada. For more information on donations, log on to www.santapaws.info or www.hautedogs.org.


                    Special events to celebrate "man's (woman's) best friend" are being planned for fans and their pets attending the game, including a ceremonial doggie first pitch, doggie beauty contest, wiener dog races, doggie washes, and more. The Armada will have a special entrance for doggies and their owners. In addition to being on a leash, dogs must have their vaccinations current and dog owners must sign a waiver of liability prior to entering Blair Field. In the interest of safety for both fans and dogs, any dog that becomes aggressive will be asked to leave. Dogs will be allowed to visit a designated comfort area throughout the game.


                    "Armada players, coaches, and staff spend every day working in the professional sports world and many of us are also devoted dog owners. We feel as sports professionals it is necessary to bring awareness to animal abuse, particularly the intolerable injustices associated with dog fighting," commented Armada President and General Manager Steven Bash. "We hope the entire community of Long Beach comes out to help support the Armada, our partners, and this important event."


                    Season ticket holders and fans who purchase tickets through the Armada corporate office or participating sponsors will be able to receive a free DOGGIE admission ticket for their canine companion. Free voucher coupons or other complimentary tickets are not eligible for DOGGIE tickets.


                    Other theme nights at Blair Field this season include "Harry Potter Day" on August 2nd, Asian Heritage Night on August 11th, and "Rock Paper Scissors Night" on August 15th. For tickets and other event information, contact the Armada ticket office at (562) 434-7161 or visit www.longbeacharmada.com. For more information on DOGGIE ticket eligibility, sponsorship of this event, or other participation in this event, please contact sbash@goldenbaseball.com.


                    • Discuss this story on the Golden Baseball League message board...


                    ww.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3514954 http://www.oursportscentral.com/serv...es/?id=3514954 i say innocent until proven guilty, but that's pretty darn funny.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Indictment Brought Against Vick

                      Originally posted by Moses View Post
                      I disagree.

                      2 2nd rounders as well as moving up 2 spots on your #1 pick for an unproven backup QB sounds like an outstanding deal to me. Even if Shaub does pan out, the Falcons got excellent value for him...especially when you consider Edge couldn't even fetch a 3rd round pick 2 years ago.
                      Matt Schaub has a passer rating of 100.9 after 3 games. I bet Atlanta spends the next 10 years looking for a quality starting QB.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X