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

  • #46
    Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

    Originally posted by Indy View Post
    Belichick is not some genius and never has been.

    SHHHH! You can't mention his complete failures while being a coach for other franchises.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
      He is a douchebag.
      That's an insult to du....on second thought you're right.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

        I think he's a great coach AND a cheater. Which makes it all the more sad he stooped to this.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          ...trying to eavsdrop on them through altered radio frequencies) was illegal?


          Where did you get that from the espn blurb mentioning "radio frequency issues" during the game.

          That seems to be a huge leap, to assume from that little tidbit that they were actually intercepting coach-QB communications.

          Since your inherent assumption is that the Patriots are pure evil, I guess it is not surprising, but I would have expected that since the Brady/Manning championship ring ratio decreased dramatically from infinity to 3 that there would not be such open hatred anymore.
          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


          • #50
            Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

            Brady never has been, nor never will be a better QB than Peyton, so how does that have anything to do with the argument?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

              Like Btown said, there's more to it than that little ESPN blurb, pacertom. I actually saw what Shade said reported somewhere. Don't remember where though.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                Since 86,

                Give Manning the receivers, other teammates, and coaching philosophies that Brady has had and I think that he has Brady's rings and probably Brady's numbers.

                Give Brady the receivers, other teammates, and coaching philosophies that Manning has had and I think that he has Manning's ring and probably Manning's numbers.

                What is clear is that they are at the very top, and to quibble about the size of the gap between then is pretty pointless and would only reflect the bias of the person doing the quibbling.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                  Brady wouldn't be able to do the job that Peyton does at the line of scrimmage. Peyton is pretty much the offensive coordinator on the field. He's not given a play, and the option to audible out of it. He's given multiple plays to choose from and then the option of audible to something else.

                  Peyton Manning has the most responsiblities of any football player in the entire league. You couldn't just throw another QB in the Colts system and expect the same results. There's a reason why Peter King routinely touts him as the smartest player in the league.

                  EDIT: There won't be an argument in 10yrs. Peyton will go down as the best QB ever. He'll 90% of the passing records, and he won't have that Dan Marino schtick of never winning a ring.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                    Products of the system
                    By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
                    September 11, 2007


                    The National Football League's greatest rogue philosopher offered the most succinct and enduring mission statement about the league and the game of football.

                    "Just win, baby," Oakland Raiders managing partner Al Davis always says, cutting to the chase like no one else.

                    There is no honor in the NFL. This is our most violent game, a cut-throat, all-out, win-at-all-costs sport where cheating – be it holding on the line, bumping in the secondary, or injecting a drug in the corner of a weight room – is, if not applauded, at the very least accepted.

                    Each sport has a culture and what people raise hell about in baseball, golf or basketball is mostly shrugged off in the NFL. That this is far and away our most popular sporting pursuit – the new national pastime – says as much about America as it does about the league's morals.

                    So what to make of the NFL's present-day coaching deity, Bill Belichick, the one who has won three of the last six Super Bowls but now is embroiled in a cheating scandal?

                    NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has "determined" that a New England Patriots employee videotaped the New York Jets defensive signals in a 38-14 victory Sunday, according to ESPN. The commissioner awaits the Pats' defense later this week.

                    So is Belichick the greatest Machiavellian mind in this ruthless game, one who just happened to get caught this time? Or is he just a lout and a cheat?

                    Is he an NFL problem or is he the NFL; a byproduct of a business where a coach that doesn't seek every last advantage is doomed to fail, like an honest politician?

                    "I think the Patriots actually live by the saying, 'If you're not cheating, you're not trying,' " said San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson.

                    Here's the thing with Belichick: this charge fits perfectly with everything we know about him on and off the field. He's no angel, a lifetime of drama that ranged from backing out of contracts, feuding with mentors (Bill Parcells) and protégés (Eric Mangini) alike and even giving the tabloids plenty of fodder for his, ah, extracurricular behavior, if you will.

                    But it also fits with everything we know about the NFL. Don't coaches hide their mouths when they speak, use multiple sideline signalers and guard playbooks with their lives? Wouldn't they sell their soul to know what an opponent is thinking?

                    "Really, it's nothing new," said Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin about signal stealing. "When you see offensive coordinators covering their mouth – and that's been going on a long time – that's one of the reasons why that's done.

                    "You hear rumors of things of that nature," Tomlin said, noting it often comes from the "New England family." "In terms of confirming it, it's never been confirmed in any instance to my knowledge. But usually where there is smoke, there's fire. Those rumors are founded on something. So it's not totally shocking, no."

                    Not shocking, perhaps. But embarrassing? Absolutely. The Green Bay Packers claim they caught a Patriots employee videotaping their signals a year ago and complained to the NFL.

                    If New England's defense is as feeble as expected, then the franchise should be punished. The rules are the rules, no matter how often they are broken; no matter the base culture.

                    Goodell should take a draft pick or even suspend Belichick, who's iron-fisted leadership means no employee would dare try this without his knowledge. Stealing signals via the human eye is one thing. Having an employee use a video camera speaks to an operation that is both brazen and premeditated.

                    It also shows the depths these coaches will go for a competitive edge. When properly executed, the advantage would be considerable. But in this instance, the risk/reward variable seems painfully small since the Patriots are more than capable of whippin' the Jets all on their own.

                    Perhaps that's just football. Whether Belichick is actually worse (or better) than any other coach in the league is difficult to determine. All of these coaches are nuts. To be an NFL coach is to work endless 100-hour weeks, sleep in your office and go bleary-eyed looking for the slightest flaw in an opponents’ Tampa 2. Then you wind up losing because a kicker goes wide right.

                    They sacrifice everything in their lives in pursuit of victories. The casualties are easy to see: health, marriage, children, sanity. It's why NFL football coaches, despite being multimillionaires, are perhaps the single most miserable group of people you'll ever know.

                    If you are willing to virtually abandon your wife and kids to win a game, what won't you do?

                    The NFL isn't alone here. Cheating is everywhere. And it can be confusing, each sport has a different culture. In golf, you can't improve your lie an inch, yet in soccer flopping is considered a skill. In baseball, cheating pitchers are colorful but corked-bat hitters are condemned. In NASCAR, a crew chief that isn't pushing the legal limits of engineering isn't doing his job. College sports is often hailed for its "purity," yet illegal recruiting is so prevalent former UNLV coach Jerry Tarkanian once surmised, "Nine out of 10 teams are cheating, the other is in last place."

                    So why expect anything less in the NFL? Fans want victories and nothing else. There are no illusions of purity here. They'll gladly cheer for players who can range from miscreant to felon. The players themselves will vote peers who have been busted taking performance enhancing drugs into the Pro Bowl.

                    Nobody cares. Nothing matters. If you're not cheating, you're not trying. Just win, baby.

                    That's the NFL. And that is the world that would lead someone such as Bill Belichick, someone with so much to lose, to insanely risk his reputation on the long shot that a small advantage might provide just one more victory he probably would have gotten anyway.
                    LINK
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                      Wetzel comes across as a Patriot apologist . He implies that the Patriots are part of a culture in the NFL where cheating is expected, but they just happened to get caught in the cookie jar. Belichik? Ah, no choirboy, but who is? C'est las vie. I hope a suspension of him personally is part of the punishment.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post


                        Where did you get that from the espn blurb mentioning "radio frequency issues" during the game.

                        That seems to be a huge leap, to assume from that little tidbit that they were actually intercepting coach-QB communications.

                        Since your inherent assumption is that the Patriots are pure evil, I guess it is not surprising, but I would have expected that since the Brady/Manning championship ring ratio decreased dramatically from infinity to 3 that there would not be such open hatred anymore.
                        I saw discussion of it on a board somewhere (think it was a Pats board, but don't recall for certain).

                        And winning a ring doesn't make me dislike a team any less, as long as I have legitimate reasons to dislike that team.

                        If the Pacers won the championship, I wouldn't dislike the Pistons or Lakers or Knicks any less.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                          word is they're not going to lose any worse than a 3rd rounder.

                          Lame.

                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                            Since 86,

                            Give Manning the receivers, other teammates, and coaching philosophies that Brady has had and I think that he has Brady's rings and probably Brady's numbers.

                            Give Brady the receivers, other teammates, and coaching philosophies that Manning has had and I think that he has Manning's ring and probably Manning's numbers.
                            No way. Don't get me wrong, I think Brady is a great QB, but I don't think he's capable of throwing 49 TDs in season. You plug him into that 2004 season, and there's no way he does what Peyton did. Similarly, Peyton's lowest TDs in a season are within 2 of Brady's best. (How has Brady never thrown 30+ touchdowns?)

                            I think it's pretty clear that, in terms of consistency and production w/in the regular season, Peyton is at a level that Brady can't touch. The postseason is where things get sticky, since Peyton is just now beginning to stake his claim there. His 2nd half of the AFC championship was as clutch as anything Brady has shown. Peyton just has to have a few more of those brilliant playoff moments.

                            Anyway, I agree w/ you about it being silly to argue this. They're both amazing QBs, lead pipe locks for the HOF. Years from now, we'll be considered privileged for getting to watch them duke it out year after year--it really is something special. There are some things about the Pats I don't respect, but Brady is solid.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              word is they're not going to lose any worse than a 3rd rounder.

                              Lame.
                              Absolutely unacceptable. If this is true, the commissioner is a fraud.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                word is they're not going to lose any worse than a 3rd rounder.

                                Lame.
                                Wow. That is lame.

                                If there isn't a first-round pick lost, then this is just pathetic. I know it's a different league, but T'wolves got he hammer laid on them for freaking Joe Smith. (I think that was his name.) Come on, Commissioner!
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X