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

New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

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

  • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

    There's no DEFINITIVE proof that they cheated during the dynasty, but come on, do you really think that they did'nt?
    That'll do.

    Comment


    • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

      The Niners were a dynasty and I don't remember tides of opposing fans hating them. I'm sure that Dallas fans probably did. But generally they won with class and grace and creative play and were well thought of. Bill Walsh won without being a big dickhead.

      I really think people don't like the Patriots not because they are good, it's because they act like graceless jerks when they win. Mocking TO continuously in the Super Bowl and again last game, which is an easy target and should be beneath them, spygate, Belichick's infidelity and being an inconsiderate, arrogant boob, taunting opposing teams, Corey Dillon, Brady's leaky condoms, Roidney Harrison and his continuous cheapshotting, Vrabel's cheapshot. There are too many incidents of boorishness, cheating and bad personality to list here but that's why people hate them, because they have never acted classy.

      Comment


      • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

        Ever think they use it as a strategy? It ticks people off, but they really cant do anything about it. Look at LT. Last year after the playoff loss he went on his rant. Come time to face the Pats, he does nothing. They know they are better than you and they want to make sure you know that too. Yea it is pretty arrogant but if there is a team that can be arrogant, its the Pats, and i hate to say that.

        Comment


        • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

          Originally posted by pig norton View Post
          There's no DEFINITIVE proof that they cheated during the dynasty, but come on, do you really think that they did'nt?
          Don't you realize that every investigative reporter has been after every disgruntled ex-Patriot trying to get him to "spill the beans" on a big scandal that helped them win titles?

          Guys like Deion Branch, who felt the Pats lowballed him on salary and then was a bitter holdout who eventually said that he would never play for NE? He was traded away with lots of bitterness.

          Now when asked, he says that basically if any of that was going on when he was in NE, the information never got to the players.

          There are other guys caught up in salary squabbles over the notoriously frugal Pats. McGinest, Ted Washington, David Givins, etc. Many of these guys left in such a way that they wouldn't mind ratting the Pats out, but from everything I have read, they to a man insist that there is really nothing there to rat out.

          Maybe they stupidly played around with the idea a couple of times in the past. They pulled it out again, out of spite for Mangini and the Jets, and it blew up in their faces.

          Indy, please read my explanation, 8 posts up. I am not equating the two.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-17-2007, 08:16 AM.
          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


          • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

            I think there's a pretty clear divide here between Colts fans and NFL fans. And not that you can't be both, but the question is, which title would you place on yourself first if asked?

            As for the cheating, yep, they broke a rule one time that's been proven. This isn't a Barry Bonds situation, where we've seen his noggin' get huge and go from a base stealing stick figure to a mountain of a human being, so we know he's on something. There's been no proof to indicate that the Patriots had done this before. You can suspect they may have done it before, but that's as far as you can go unless you've got some concrete evidence the rest of the world doesn't. Otherwise, you're just a jealous homer, embroiled in a rivalry. Believe me, I'd probably be just as irrational if the Raiders were any good and got caught cheating

            One thing I got a good chuckle out of today was on 950 AM. They were asking callers to call in and give them valid reasons that the Patriots were NOT the best team in the NFL. The claims were flimsy at best, and that's usually not a hard question to answer, because in an era of parity, virtually every team has holes.

            Comment


            • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

              This thread is just stupid. Why bother argue? Pats will believe what they want. Who cares, honestly?
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment


              • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                I think I will just give up.

                You are all right, the Pats are demons, hold nightly Satan-worshipping sessions where they braid their tails and watch kiddie porn. They are evil incarnate and without cheating and paying off refs would go 0-16. They deserve no respect and no credit for the past 7 years, it's all luck, cheating, and corruption.

                Miraculously, though, if one of the Pats players becomes a Colt (like AV), his tail then falls off, he grows a halo, and he bakes cookies for senior citizens while wearing his Eagle Scout uniform.

                I understand now.

                I'll throw a bone: I'll use the Colts logo as my avatar for a month on these forums if they win Nov.4, provided that if the Pats win, then Indy would use a Patriot logo avatar for one month. Fair enough?
                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


                • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                  Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                  I think I will just give up.

                  You are all right, the Pats are demons, hold nightly Satan-worshipping sessions where they braid their tails and watch kiddie porn. They are evil incarnate and without cheating and paying off refs would go 0-16. They deserve no respect and no credit for the past 7 years, it's all luck, cheating, and corruption.

                  Miraculously, though, if one of the Pats players becomes a Colt (like AV), his tail then falls off, he grows a halo, and he bakes cookies for senior citizens while wearing his Eagle Scout uniform.

                  I understand now.

                  I'll throw a bone: I'll use the Colts logo as my avatar for a month on these forums if they win Nov.4, provided that if the Pats win, then Indy would use a Patriot logo avatar for one month. Fair enough?
                  Haha, you kind of brought some of this onto yourself though, with the, OMG Peyton's record should have an "*" by it, too!
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                    I think I will just give up.

                    You are all right, the Pats are demons, hold nightly Satan-worshipping sessions where they braid their tails and watch kiddie porn. They are evil incarnate and without cheating and paying off refs would go 0-16. They deserve no respect and no credit for the past 7 years, it's all luck, cheating, and corruption.

                    Miraculously, though, if one of the Pats players becomes a Colt (like AV), his tail then falls off, he grows a halo, and he bakes cookies for senior citizens while wearing his Eagle Scout uniform.

                    I understand now.

                    I'll throw a bone: I'll use the Colts logo as my avatar for a month on these forums if they win Nov.4, provided that if the Pats win, then Indy would use a Patriot logo avatar for one month. Fair enough?
                    You're on.


                    Comment


                    • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                      Actually, that sounds intriguing. Anyone willing to do the same for me? If the Colts win on Nov 4th, you can choose out any avatar picture you want involving the Colts or Pats and I will put it up for a couple months. If I win, I get to choose any picture I want and you have to put it up for a month or two.

                      Comment


                      • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                        As far as the cameragate being limited to one game, you do know the same exact guy was booted from a game last year because of the same exact thing don't you? That came out early on in the whole thing.

                        Also, Peter King is a NE guy, born and raised, and he even says that the NFL is sweeping it under the rug because it goes back years and the league doesn't want a scandal fallout.

                        But it's okay, keep your head buried in the sand. I'm sure it's nice and cozy.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          the NFL is sweeping it under the rug because it goes back years and the league doesn't want a scandal fallout.
                          Wouldn't any decent investigative reporter want to blow the lid off this and uncover the scandal? Does the NFL control all the media? I'm kinda wondering if they have their own black helicopters.

                          If the Pats were taping signals years ago to get play calls and relaying it to the offense, would you not think that many of the players on the offense would know about it? Since there has been turnover of every position on offense except for a lineman or two, wouldn't you think that one of them wouldn't mind talking to the media and ratting the Pats out? A Deion Branch, David Givens, Daniel Graham, Jermaine Wiggins, Antawn Smith, Corey Dillon-- wouldn't one of those guys chose to be a "Jose Canseco" and make a name for himself by spilling the beans, especially if they hold some bitterness about being cut or resigned below what they thought they deserved?

                          Far from ratting them out, the story from guys like Branch is

                          Hey, first I ever heard about that stuff... nothing like that got to me when I was there

                          and we are talking about a guy that was the #1 wide receiver on the team.

                          It's hard to prove that there was not a bogeyman under the bed. But nobody saw the bogeyman, and that includes people who spent a lot of time in there.

                          But if it makes you feel better to fantasize about ways to demonize your rival, I guess it's your perogative.

                          I tend to think of Pats-Colts games as matchups of 2 teams with lots of very highly skilled players and coaches, rather than a struggle of good vs. evil, and I expect the outcome to be based upon what team plays better, rather than blaming an unfavorable outcome for my team upon evil-doing by the opposition or "fixed" officiating.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-17-2007, 03:45 PM.
                          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


                          • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                            But if it makes you feel better to fantasize about ways to demonize your rival, I guess it's your perogative.
                            Way to say in a roundabout way that I just made up what Peter King wrote.

                            I'm gonna take the lead of everyone else, and be done with it. Obviously you're the voice of reason, and you won't be shaken.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Way to say in a roundabout way that I just made up what Peter King wrote.
                              No, I am saying in a very direct way that attaching an asterisk to the past 7 years is in fact demonizing the Patriots. Also, very much of the discussion on this board and others I have read has been that Colts fans hope that they can be the Pats not just because they think they are better than them or it gives them better playoff seeding, but because they simply hate the Patriots.

                              I had no reason to doubt what you said that Peter King wrote. I was curious though. In looking over King's columns which are all archived at si.com, I don't find any criticism of the NFL's handing of the situation or any hint that King thinks anything is being swept under the rug. The only criticism King seems to have is Belichick's lousy apology, and later the Cowboys coach saying King misquoted him about saying there was a black mark on the Pats record.

                              You can peruse the King archive yourself:

                              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/wri..._king/archive/

                              Just curious, which column leads you to believe the NFL is striving to coverup a conspiracy to win super bowls by cheating?
                              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


                              • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                                Ironically it was in the one that has since been taken down.

                                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

                                Where he criticizes Goodell.

                                But you're still failing to recognize the same exact NE employee who was caught for filming was kicked out of a game last year. It's a known thing. You think it's coincidence that an organization coached by Mangini (sp?) caught them?

                                They, NE, were also specifically targeted in a league wide notice about such actions.

                                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.
                                http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677

                                NEW YORK -- A story in Wednesday's New York Daily News claims that Jets coach Eric Mangini, a former New England assistant under Bill Belichick, came armed with keen knowledge of the team's surveillance methods -- and finally decided to act.

                                "[The Jets] knew they did it," the Daily News wrote, citing a person with knowledge of the situation, who sent the newspaper an e-mail. "They caught the guy a year ago, but couldn't do anything about it. When Eric came, he said that's what they used to do. Bill is going to be [ticked] at Eric. He kissed and told."

                                Sunday's game was the fifth time Mangini has coached against Belichick since joining the Jets.

                                -- ESPN.com news services
                                That's from the same article, just in a side column.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X