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

Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

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

  • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

    Or at least sign Leftwich. I don't think he's any better than Boller, but what the hell. Give him until Week 8 to learn the offense and throw him out there. Couldn't be too much worse.

    Comment


    • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

      How long does it take to learn to hand the football to Jamaal Lewis? Oh wait, he's gone too?

      How long does it take to learn "lob the ball to Heap as fast as you can"?
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

        The true story of Shady Brady and Bill Bellicheat:

        [yt]0EU1O-hGxgg[/yt]

        Comment


        • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

          God, I love that. Especially the part about U of M.

          Comment


          • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            How long does it take to learn to hand the football to Jamaal Lewis? Oh wait, he's gone too?

            How long does it take to learn "lob the ball to Heap as fast as you can"?
            Don't they have McGahee though?
            PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

            Comment


            • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

              That was a great song.
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                Haha. That was a pretty dang good video and song.

                Comment


                • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                  Well a weak penalty, tax deductable as well I would assume, but Jay can better answer that one, nonetheless I'm amazed by how this is treated in the press, the stupidity almost with some writers, certainly about "how they would use the tape" and the utter silence about radio freqeuncies we heard something about early on

                  As for "viewing after taping": pure BS in today's world all it takes is a bloke somewhere not to far off let's say half a mile, with a good quality notebook and receiver and a radio/mobile phone and Bob's your uncle, the signals are back on the field in a matter of 1 second, plenty of time to react.

                  As for the radio frequencies..........see above but also consider this;

                  It is relatively simple to intercept radio frequencies as used by sports teams, they will not be high-tech scrambled devices used, so with some analyzing equipment it is not that hard to "listen in" to what is going on.

                  IMO they should have thrown the book at the Pats, like in a 5 game deduction no matter what the results, and the same for the coach should he choose to change teams, that is what he is bringing with him.

                  that would pretty much exclude them from the post season which is what really hurts and makes you think before you cheat again, 500 K, likely to be "evened out" by a bonus of some sort from the organization means nothing.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                    Don't like Brady being thrown in on this. None of this is his fault; it's highly unlikely he knew what was going on.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                      Dont know if this has been posted yet.

                      Pats' Owner Kraft Issues Statement On Spying Controversy
                      15th September, 2007 - 12:42 pm
                      Boston Herald - “This has been an extremely difficult week for our organization. The most troubling part for me, personally, is the impact these actions have had on our fans. We have spent the last 14 years developing and building a franchise that people could embrace and support. The loyalty of our fans has been the most rewarding aspect of owning the team. I am deeply disappointed that the embarrassing events of this past week may cause some people to see our team in a different light.

                      After reviewing the facts of the past weekend, the commissioner has made a determination that our franchise engaged in activities that violate the leagues rules. He has determined the punishment and I accept it.

                      I believe that coach Belichick always tries to do what is best for the team and he is always accountable for his decisions. He has been a very important part of what our organization has accomplished over the last seven years. In this case, one of his decisions has resulted in a severe penalty for our franchise. He has paid a heavy price and so has our organization. He has apologized for his actions. I accept his apology and look forward to working with him as we move forward.

                      It has been a distinct privilege to be involved in the National Football League since 1994. I am passionate about the league because it represents the ultimate in competition. To this end, the integrity of the game and competition between the 32 teams is of paramount importance to me. Whenever the commissioner believes that the integrity of the league’s competition is compromised, he must act decisively to protect it.

                      In addition to our fans, I also feel for our players. I know how hard our players work and prepare for every game and their accomplishments speak for themselves. I look forward to returning all of our focus and energy to the field."
                      Received the 1998 J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award

                      Named an NBA All-Star in 1998

                      Won the 2002 NBA Sportsmanship Award

                      Part of the 2003 Spurs Championship Team.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                        Apparently this isn't over at all, as BSPN is now reporting:

                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3022773
                        NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered the New England Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action of coach Bill Belichick and the franchise, according to sources familiar with the details of Goodell's private communication with the team.

                        If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, the sources said.

                        Goodell alluded to the league's position when he made his decision public to discipline the Patriots when he stated that the NFL would "review" and "monitor" the team's videotaping procedures, effective immediately. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Patriots owner Robert Kraft when the two men spoke Thursday, sources said.

                        The action is being taken because Belichick all but conceded to the commissioner that his interpretation of the rules allowed him to use videotape of opposing team hand signals for future games but not on game day, sources said. The commissioner rejected that interpretation and was aware that there had been other incidents involving the Patriots in recent years.

                        If Goodell discovers that Belichick and the team has copied the files without disclosure to the NFL, the consequences will be significant, sources said.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                          i think i may have reconsidered my position on the matter, this is pretty convincing...

                          [yt]UFfobQftP5k[/yt]
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                            This is one of my favorite strings of parody in a long time.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                              Waiting for the other shoe to drop if we hear about bugs being planted in the visitor's locker room at Gillette Stadium. I wonder why that smoke detector looks funny?
                              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: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                                To Bill Belichick, a Question: Why Cheat?
                                by Frank Deford

                                I am always touched when, after all the savagery of a football game, the opposing players and coaches mingle pleasantly in the middle of the gridiron. So it is that my lasting image of Bill Belichick came at the conclusion of the AFC championship game in January after his Patriots had been beaten by Indianapolis.

                                The Colts' magnificent quarterback, Peyton Manning, spotted Belichick and sought him out in a crowd. But Belichick ducked away, brushing by Manning, refusing to pay homage to the man who had been most responsible for his team's defeat. The look on Manning's face: some embarrassment, but mostly, it seemed, disappointment mixed with surprise.

                                Somehow it struck me as all the sadder because Manning and Belichick were not just football ships passing in the night. They are shared heirs of the game. And more sweetly: they are triumph, the children of devotion — Manning, the son of the gallant Archie, who was himself a superior quarterback doomed to bad teams; Belichick, the son of a lifelong coach who toiled in the vineyards, never approaching the glory his son would enjoy. Belichick's biographer, the late David Halberstam, gamely played up this angle, desperately trying to infuse some warm blood into his cold, cold veins.

                                Now, though, we see Belichick as not merely surly and ungracious — a pigskin match for the diamond grouch who bares his duplicate initials: BB, Barry Bonds — but, likewise, a defiler of his game.

                                To me, in fact, Belichick, is most analogous to Richard Nixon. Both men were so smart, yet so uncomfortable. Both could never accept the success they carved out for themselves. Perhaps, even after three Super Bowls, Belichick never feels that he deserves to be in the best company, for he himself was no good as a player.

                                And for both, all so pointless. Everything else aside about Watergate, it wasn't necessary. Nixon was a lock to win the next election — and he did, taking 49 states. What intelligence could he possibly steal from the Democrats? Belichick's Patriots are better than ever. What could possibly be gained by stealing signals from some hopelessly outmanned opponent?

                                Commissioner Roger Goodell could have punished Belichick even more harshly than he chose to. But, then, why bother? The shame that Bill Belichick suffers is worse than any penalty. He cheated the game of football, tarnishing the one thing he seems to care for. His genius and his victories alike will forever be suspect. At least Nixon always had China.
                                LINK
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X