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

Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

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

  • Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

    I'm posting this because until now I thought he only agreed to plead guilty to the gambling, but now it's to the killing of dogs as well. Wow. What a scumbag.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24...rss_topstories

    (CNN) -- NFL star Michael Vick has admitted that he and two of co-conspirators killed dogs that did not fight well in papers filed Friday with a federal court in Virginia.

    Vick said he would plead guilty to one count of "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture" in a plea agreement filed at U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia.

    The charge is punishable by up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, "full restitution, a special assessment and 3 years of supervised release," the plea deal said.

    Federal prosecutors agreed to ask for the low end of the sentencing guidelines.

    "The defendant will plead guilty because the defendant is in fact guilty of the charged offense," the plea agreement said.

    In an additional summary of facts, signed by Vick and filed with the agreement, Vick admitted buying pit bulls and the property used for training and fighting the dogs but did not bet on the fights or receive any of the money won.

    "Most of the 'Bad Newz Kennels' operations and gambling monies were provided by Vick," the official summary of facts said. Gambling wins were generally split between co-conspirators Tony Taylor, Quanis Phillips and sometimes Purnell Peace, it continued.

    "Vick did not gamble by placing side bets on any of the fights. Vick did not receive any of the proceeds from the purses that were won by 'Bad Newz Kennels.' "

    Vick also agreed that "collective efforts" by him and two others caused the deaths of at least six dogs.

    Around April, Vick, Peace and Phillips tested some dogs in fighting sessions at Vick's property in Virginia, the statement said. "Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning.

    "Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick," the summary said.

    Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach, Virginia; Phillips, 28, of Atlanta; and Taylor, 34, of Hampton, Virginia, already have accepted agreements to plead guilty in exchange for reduced sentences.

    Vick, 27, is scheduled to appear Monday in court, where he is expected to plead guilty before a judge. See a timeline of the case against Vick »

    The judge in the case will have the final say over the plea agreement.

    The federal case against Vick focused on the interstate conspiracy, but Vick's admission that he was involved in the killing of dogs could lead to local charges, according to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

    "It sometimes happens -- not often -- that the state will follow a federal prosecution by charging its own crimes for exactly the same behavior," Toobin said Friday.

    "The risk for Vick is, if he makes admissions in his federal guilty plea, the state of Virginia could say, 'Hey, look, you admitted violating Virginia state law as well. We're going to introduce that against you and charge you in our court.' "

    In the plea deal, Vick agreed to cooperate with investigators and provide all information he may have on any criminal activity and to testify if necessary. Vick also agreed to turn over any documents he has and to submit to polygraph tests.

    Vick agreed to "make restitution for the full amount of the costs associated" with the dogs that are currently being held by the government.

    "Such costs may include, but are not limited to, all costs associated with the care of the dogs involved in that case, including if necessary, the long-term care and/or the humane euthanasia of some or all of those animals."

    Prosecutors, with the support of animal rights activists, have asked for permission to euthanize the dogs. But the dogs could serve as important evidence in the cases against Vick and his admitted co-conspirators.

    Judge Henry E. Hudson issued an order Thursday telling the U.S. Marshals Service to "arrest and seize the defendant property, and use discretion and whatever means appropriate to protect and maintain said defendant property."

    Both the judge's order and Vick's filing refer to "approximately" 53 pit bulldogs.

    After Vick's indictment last month, National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell ordered the quarterback not to report to the Falcons training camp, and the league is reviewing the case.

    Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank told the NFL Network on Monday he could not speculate on Vick's future as a Falcon, at least not until he has seen "a statement of facts" in the case.

  • #2
    Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

    Hanging and drowning?

    Throw the book.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

      Originally posted by Mal View Post
      I'm posting this because until now I thought he only agreed to plead guilty to the gambling, but now it's to the killing of dogs as well. Wow. What a scumbag.
      Eh, that's why ESPN is not the worldwide leader in sports...
      http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2989037
      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


      • #4
        Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

        The most disgusting thing for me? Knowing that there are GMs (not to mention the NFL as whole) who will essentially be saying in 1-2+ years: 'I want to pay a man, who admitted to brutally killing dogs, millions of dollars because he's really good at playing football.' A ridiculous little piece of civilization.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

          Originally posted by Mal View Post
          The most disgusting thing for me? Knowing that there are GMs (not to mention the NFL as whole) who will essentially be saying in 1-2+ years: 'I want to pay a man, who admitted to brutally killing dogs, millions of dollars because he's really good at playing football.' A ridiculous little piece of civilization.
          I don't think Vick will be given a second chance. PETA would make that teams season a living hell.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

            The ESPN thing is saying he didn't personally kill any of the dogs nor gambled on any of the fights. The CNN article says the exact same thing, just in different wording. This is where the difference lies

            Originally posted by ESPN
            The source said Vick maintains he never killed dogs and never gambled on a dog fight. He will admit he was present when dogs were killed, but that he did not personally kill any of the dogs.
            Originally posted by CNN
            Vick admitted buying pit bulls and the property used for training and fighting the dogs but did not bet on the fights or receive any of the money won. . . ."Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick," the summary said.
            Him buying the dogs and funding the activities is what makes him guilty of killing them.

            It really doesn't matter, considering your just as guilty of murder if you hire someone to do it for you.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

              Originally posted by Indy View Post
              I don't think Vick will be given a second chance. PETA would make that teams season a living hell.
              I'm willing to bet they don't.

              He'll donate them millions of dollars for education and awareness and it will be like he was a member from the get-go. He and his PR people are going to be in full mode, and you can bet your *** PETA is #1 on their list.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                Even if teams are lining up to sign him after his jail time and suspension, I seriously doubt he'll make it back physically. The only thing that makes him a viable QB is his athleticism and that will go after not playing for two or three years (and that's not even considering he'll be almost 30 by then). So he'll have to play another position or even play as a return guy but he's played QB at every level...
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  The CNN article says the exact same thing, just in different wording. This is where the difference lies.
                  That's the point, from day one ESPN has been on this baseless Mike Vick apologist shtick where every story has been slanted...
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                    Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
                    That's the point, from day one ESPN has been on this baseless Mike Vick apologist shtick where every story has been slanted...
                    What? They've crucified him on TV and especially their radio shows. Eric Kasillyius (no clue on the spelling) and Dan LeBartard were killing him and riping Wilbon at the fact that the "black community" (their words, not mine) were the ones defending him and his actions. (Wilbon was saying it was repulsive but he thought the media and other people wouldn't be so harsh if he were white, which I totally disagree with but whatever.)

                    He's still denying gambling and he's still denying personally killing any of them. Both stories say the exact same thing, just different ways.

                    Hell, ESPN's article even says the two other defendants claim that he (Vick) personally killed atleast 8 dogs, something that CNN's didn't do.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                      good cartoon on the ideal Vick jury:

                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                        Vick should be banned from the NFL.

                        ESPN the other day was already bringing up his comeback, "America loves great comeback stories, and in 2-3 years....".

                        Forget that. This disgusting individual deserves to never be allowed to step foot on an NFL field again.
                        Super Bowl XLI Champions
                        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                          Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                          Vick should be banned from the NFL.

                          ESPN the other day was already bringing up his comeback, "America loves great comeback stories, and in 2-3 years....".

                          Forget that. This disgusting individual deserves to never be allowed to step foot on an NFL field again.

                          On one of the ESPN discussions one of the commentators said they thought he could come back because "America loves an underdog".

                          And he was serious... none of them seemed to catch the humor/irony in that statement. I caught it tho!

                          -Bball
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                            I do not like Vick, or what he was involved with. One would think someone
                            in his position could find better ways to keep himself entertained. I'm barely
                            a "thousandairre" let alone a "millionairre", and certainly can.

                            And while he does deserve to catch hell and be punished, I think maybe
                            there is a bit too much emphasis being put on his participation in killing
                            these dogs.

                            These are extremely vicious animals that would maim or kill a person just
                            for being there, without any provocation. Most of us have seen all the
                            stories that keep popping up about pit-bulls attacking and ripping the
                            face off a child for no reason.

                            While I feel little (if any) sympathy for Vick, I definately have none for
                            these pit-bulls that were killed. These are not animals that could not
                            have been adopted out, and would have been euthanized anyway.

                            Killing them was right thing to do. Having them in the first place was
                            the biggest mistake.
                            Last edited by RamBo_Lamar; 08-24-2007, 07:39 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                              Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                              I do not like Vick, or what he was involved with. One would think someone
                              in his position could find better ways to keep himself entertained. I'm barely
                              a "thousandairre" let alone a "millionairre", and certainly can.

                              And while he does deserve to catch hell and be punished, I think maybe
                              there is a bit too much emphasis being put on his participation in killing
                              these dogs.

                              These are extremely vicious animals that would maim or kill a person just
                              for being there, without any provocation. Most of us have seen all the
                              stories that keep popping up about pit-bulls attacking and ripping the
                              face off a child for no reason.

                              While I feel little (if any) sympathy for Vick, I definately have none for
                              these pit-bulls that were killed. These are not animals that could not
                              have been adopted out, and would have been euthanized anyway.

                              Killing them was right thing to do. Having them in the first place was
                              the biggest mistake.
                              I would not have a pit bull but there are a lot of pit bull owners that would absolutely disagree with you.
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X