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

  • #16
    Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
    here is a link to a blog with a picture of the guy doing it... the picture is hella big, otherwise i'd post it here.

    http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot...ubterfuge.html

    if you click on it you can see a guy with a camera circled
    LMAO

    Wow, that is pretty funny. You would think he would be using a home camcorder or something..but no. He's sitting there with a 50 pound camera over his shoulder about 20 feet away from the Jets coaches.

    Someone left a funny comment though on that site though. "I guess that is why they only had 3 guys covering Moss on that 60 yard bomb TD."
    I am still embarassed as a fan though. I'm sure the Pats will lose a few picks over this incident.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

      Coming from the Patriot this doesn't surprise me at all. The Jets were not as good as the Pats on Sunday, but they certainly weren't that bad either.
      PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

        After looking at the confiscated videotape the league has concluded the Patriot's did indeed knowingly violate league rules:

        http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...677&type=story
        NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the New England Patriots violated league rules Sunday when they videotaped defensive signals by the New York Jets' coaches, according to league sources. NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Sources say the visual evidence confirmed the suspicion. Goodell is considering severe sanctions, including the possibility of docking the Patriots "multiple draft picks" because it is the competitive violation in the wake of a stern warning to all teams since he became commissioner, the sources said.

        The Patriots have been suspected in previous incidents. The Patriots will be allowed an opportunity to present their case by Friday, sources said, most likely via the telephone. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said on Tuesday that no official decision has been made and that the club has not been notified. The league also was reviewing a possible violation into the number of radio frequencies the Patriots were using during Sunday's game, sources said. The team did not have a satisfactory explanation when asked about possible irregularities in its communication setup during the game. Goodell is expected to have a decision no later than Friday but that is not set in stone.

        Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

          What a toolish thing to do. (Stealing signals)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

            This same thing happening against the Packers tells me its not some isolated incident. The Pats would have no incentive to do this with the Pack so if they were doing it to them, I'm sure they were doing it to just about everybody.

            Can't say I'm surprised. Pats might be a successful franchise, but I don't think anyone will ever mistake them for a classy franchise.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

              Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
              Didn't they have a similar situation against the Dolphins last year as well?
              The Dolphins did it to the Patriots last year.

              One of their defensive players let it slip in a postgame interview to a local paper that they had reviewed film and audio to figure out the Patriots play-calling.

              The film he was talking about was not coach's tapes, official game film, or TV audio. It was audio and maybe video recorded by Dolphins personnel or bought from a 3rd party spy of Patriot's coaches and their signals.

              It was the second game between them of the year.

              This could be a case of "they are doing it to us, so we will do it to them"

              That doesn't make it right, but makes it at least somewhat understandable.

              link:
              http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/categ...adys-audibles/

              The NFL investigated it, the Dolphins denied it, they had no "smoking gun" i.e. an actual illegally obtained tape, so there was no penalty.

              This incident did provoke a league-wide warning, which the Pats apparently ignored, and that is probably what ticks off the commish the most.
              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


              • #22
                Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                And now folks you know why during training camp the Colts were so damn paranoid about people with video equipment. They even dictate to the television stations shooting video for the news casts which way they could point their cameras.

                They eased up finally this year and I suspect because #1 there are just too many folks out there with digital to police or #2 they change everything up once they get back on their home turf so it doesn't matter.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                  Word is Polian had every non-NFL affiliated camera removed from the field prior to the AFC championship game for this exact reason.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                    If Goodell really wants to send a message he should do what they do in the NCAA - in addition to sanctions the Pats have to forfeit the Jets' game.

                    THAT would get people's attention.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                      http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal.../reiss_pieces/

                      September 12, 2007

                      Belichick statement

                      By Mike Reiss, Globe Staff

                      Bill Belichick released the following statement today:

                      "Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner Goodell about a videotaping procedure during last Sunday's game and my interpretation of the rules. At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling. Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league’s decision, I will have further comment."
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                        "Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner Goodell about a videotaping procedure during last Sunday's game and my interpretation of the rules.
                        Hopefully I'm just reading this wrong because otherwise it sounds like the coach was in full support of what took place.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                          to expand upon tom's post...

                          Belichick Apologizes for Spying Flap

                          from The Associated Press

                          Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized Wednesday for the commotion surrounding his team following accusations that his club spied on the Jets during New England's season-opening victory in New York.

                          Belichick said he spoke with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this week about a "videotaping procedure" during last Sunday's game and "my interpretation of the rules."

                          "At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said in a statement. "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."

                          At a news conference, Belichick refused to answer questions about the accusations, saying he said all he could in his statement. When pressed for a response, Belichick replied: "Are there any questions about the Chargers? Anyone want to talk about the football game?"
                          The Patriots play San Diego on Sunday night.

                          The coach's statement follows a report that the NFL is considering punishing the Patriots for spying.

                          ESPN.com, citing league sources, reported Tuesday that Goodell has determined the Patriots violated league rules Sunday when they videotaped defensive signals by the Jets' coaches. But the report also said the Patriots have not yet presented their case to the league.

                          The Web site's report said Goodell is considering severe sanctions, including docking the Patriots "multiple draft picks."

                          A league spokesman, however, said only that an investigation is under way. Both teams said no decision has been made.

                          NFL security confiscated a video camera and tape from a Patriots employee during New England's 38-14 victory. The employee was accused of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches as they signaled to players on the field.
                          http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14345022
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                            Originally posted by RWB View Post
                            Hopefully I'm just reading this wrong because otherwise it sounds like the coach was in full support of what took place.
                            Yep. That's how I read that statement too.

                            This wasn't some sort of accident. It was planned, from the head coach on down. They thought they found a loophole in the letter of the rules and were trying to exploit it.

                            If that's the case, a forfeit and MULTIPLE draft picks is probably the bare minimum.

                            I'm not so naive to believe that teams don't look for an edge all of the time, but this sounds like it went WAY over the line.
                            You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                            All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                            - Jimmy Buffett

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                              Originally posted by Doug View Post
                              ...a forfeit and MULTIPLE draft picks is probably the bare minimum.
                              Chris Mortensen thinks a forfeit is very unlikely:

                              http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=17201


                              Alan (NY, NY): As a Jet fan I hope that Goodell decides that the Patriots must forfeit the game to the Jets. Is that likely?

                              Chris Mortensen: I wouldn't count on that, at all. The camera was confiscated relatively early in the game and certainly wasn't deciphered. The Patriots have a pretty good team. I think they can beat most anybody without the aid of stealing signals and what-have-you...and that's the shame of putting things at risk. The players don't deserve to have their excellence and achievements tainted. Again, I don't see a forfeit.



                              ----
                              I can see them losing a 1st round pick, a second day pick, a big monetary fine, and a Belichick 3 game or so suspension.

                              That would be enough to certainly get the attention of the other teams who are also doing this or who might consider something doing something similar.
                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                                Chris Mortensen: I wouldn't count on that, at all. The camera was confiscated relatively early in the game and certainly wasn't deciphered. The Patriots have a pretty good team. I think they can beat most anybody without the aid of stealing signals and what-have-you...and that's the shame of putting things at risk. The players don't deserve to have their excellence and achievements tainted. Again, I don't see a forfeit.

                                ----
                                I can see them losing a 1st round pick, a second day pick, a big monetary fine, and a Belichick 3 game or so suspension.
                                .

                                I wasn't looking at the forfeit as a "Jets would won" thing, but as a punishment thing.

                                I think you're right, though, a Belichick suspension is probably more likely.
                                You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                                All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                                - Jimmy Buffett

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X