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

NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

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

  • NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

    NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting


    By Mike Fish
    ESPN.com

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3363455

    Former New England Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who has told ESPN.com he has potentially damaging information about the team's taping practices, reached an agreement Wednesday to meet with league officials and turn over any video tapes he might have to support his allegations.

    Walsh, employed by the Patriots from 1996 through the 2002 Super Bowl and now an assistant golf pro in Hawaii, is expected to travel to New York and interview with Commissioner Roger Goodell and other NFL officials on Tuesday, May 13. Before the long-anticipated meeting, the agreement calls for Walsh to provide the league any tapes or materials he possesses from his years with the Patriots.

    Walsh told ESPN.com in a January interview that he had never been contacted by NFL officials during their investigation of the Patriots' illegal taping practices. It was only after his name surfaced in the media during Super Bowl week that the league attempted to reach Walsh, who worked seven years with the Patriots before being let go in January, 2003.


    The Spygate story surfaced after a Patriots' video assistant was caught illegally taping defensive signals from New York Jets assistant coaches during the 2007 season opener. The Jets knew what to look for in catching the Patriots, as head coach Eric Mangini and several assistants, including video director Steve Scarnecchia, previously worked under Bill Belichick in New England.


    "If I had a reason to want to go public or tell a story, I could have done it before this even broke," Walsh told ESPN.com in January. "I could have said everything rather than having Mangini be the one to bring it out."
    Walsh, 31, is thought to be the last and perhaps most crucial witness in the lingering Spygate saga. He expressed a willingness to speak to NFL officials back in January about insights into the Pats' taping procedures, but attorney Michael N. Levy, a white-collar crime specialist with the Washington-based firm of McKee Nelson, continued negotiating with the league until Walsh was provided full indemnification against possible lawsuits, absent intentional untruthfulness.

    "I am pleased that we now have an agreement that provides Mr. Walsh with appropriate legal protections," Levy said in a prepared statement. "Mr. Walsh is looking forward to providing the NFL with the materials he has and telling the NFL what he knows."

    The eight-page agreement requires Walsh turn over to the NFL any documents, including videotapes that relate to allegations of videotaping Patriots opponents, by May 8. His legal counsel, Levy, is allowed under the agreement to retain a copy of his document, though the materials can not be used for commercial purposes or in a manner that could "reasonably be expected to be disparaging to the NFL." Nor may Walsh or his attorney make documents available to a third party without the league's consent.


    The agreement fully indemnifies Walsh and holds him harmless against all claims, losses, liabilities, attorneys fees, costs [including travel expenses] and reasonable lost wages as a result of his former employment with the Patriots and subsequent cooperation in the NFL's videotaping investigation.


    Walsh is also required to refrain from seeking commercial gain from his involvement until fulfilling his obligations to the league. In an interesting twist, the agreement spells out that any financial gain Walsh realizes related to his involvement in Spygate over the next five years must be donated to a charity selected by the NFL and approved by Walsh.


    The agreement also stipualtes that Walsh must meet with the NFL before being interviewed by any third party, including the media. "Accordingly, Mr. Walsh will not be making any statements at this time," Levy said.


    The drawn-out negotiations between Levy and the league's outside counsel, Gregg Levy [no relation], presumably also representing the Patriots' interest, finally closed in on a deal over the past two weeks.
    The question now is whether Walsh has first-hand insight or video evidence to advance the story. Walsh has suggested he has video tapes and the agreement is written with that assumption. But if he does have tapes, what do they reveal? And how much more damaging would it be for the Patriots and Belichick?


    There's also the issue of what light, if any, he can shed on allegations that the then-underdog Patriots taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough the afternoon before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002. Rumors of the taping first circulated shortly after the Spygate incident last September, and were reported by the Boston Herald, citing a single, unnamed source, on the eve of the Super Bowl.


    The Herald story cited an unidentified member of the Patriots' video staff as having filmed the Rams' final practice. Other media outlets subsequently connected Walsh to the alleged taping. ESPN.com, however, has been unable to confirm that the taping took place.
    Asked about the rumored taping, Walsh told ESPN.com: "Really, it is nothing that I care to go on the record about or talk about."


    Ever since his name surfaced, the league and the Patriots have minimized Walsh's significance to Spygate, while continuing to hit on the theme that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and that it's time to move on. Back in September, the league took away the Patriots first-round draft pick [31st pick in Saturday's college draft], while levying a $500,000 fine against Belichick and a $250,000 fine to the team.


    The story has been kept alive by Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has criticized the league's investigation -- specifically the destruction of notes and six tapes turned over by the Patriots from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason. After initially describing the illegal taping as very limited, Goodell later revealed that Belichick had admitted following the same taping practices since he took over the Patriots in 2000.


    Specter has been vocal in expressing frustration with what he views as stonewalling tactics by the league and its teams. His staff has approached individuals with both the Patriots and Jets, only to be told by team attorneys that they would not cooperate with his investigation.
    Specter will not be part of the NFL's interview of Walsh, but he and his staff will meet with him later in Washington.

    Mike Fish is an investigative reporter for ESPN.com. He can be reached at michaeljfish@gmail.com.
    It's about time we learn the truth, whatever it may be.
    Super Bowl XLI Champions
    2000 Eastern Conference Champions





  • #2
    Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

    Good. The Patriots really have nothing to lose. If Walsh never came out, everyone outside of Boston would have assumed they cheated for the past 6-8 years no matter what. I'm eager to hear what he has to say.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

      They did cheat for the past 6-8 years. BB publicly admitted that taping the other teams signals was standard practice since the beginning of his coaching position at NE.

      Whether or not they taped StL's practice session before the Super Bowl is what's being assumed.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

        Originally posted by Moses View Post
        ...everyone outside of Boston would have assumed they cheated...
        Did I wake up in a bizzarro world where the Pats weren't caught cheating and penalized or something?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          Did I wake up in a bizzarro world where the Pats weren't caught cheating and penalized or something?
          If you stayed at a hotel in Boston, then yes.

          To clarify, I was remarking upon video taping another teams walk through; not the practice of videotaping signals during a game.
          Last edited by Moses; 04-23-2008, 04:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

            Am I the only one who has a feeling that Walsh has nothing major?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              Am I the only one who has a feeling that Walsh has nothing major?
              It's either that, or he has tapes but no proof that he was told to make the tapes by Belichick/Pats.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                Pats statement:

                The New England Patriots are pleased to learn that Matt Walsh is finally willing to come forward to meet with the NFL. We are eagerly anticipating his honest disclosures to Commissioner Goodell next month and the return of all the materials he took during his time of employment. We fully expect this meeting to conclude the league’s investigation into a damaging and false allegation that was originally levied against the team on the day before this year’s Super Bowl.

                It is important to note that there has never been a confidentiality agreement restricting Matt Walsh and no legal protections were ever necessary for him to speak to the NFL, to media outlets or to anyone else regarding his employment with the Patriots. He demanded to be released from responsibility for his statements, and after a frustrating and lengthy negotiation period, a settlement has finally been reached. Walsh has been granted a significant number of privileges through this agreement, none of which the Patriots or the NFL were obligated to give.

                At all times, we cooperated fully with the league’s investigation and stand by our initial public statement from Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008: “The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false.”


                http://www.patsfans.com/price/blog/?p=392
                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


                • #9
                  Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                  The question I have is what will happen if they are found guilty of this? Arrests? Fines? Loss of draft pick(s)?

                  I'm in no way defending NE, I'd love to see them all rot for all I care, but what does the League intend on gaining out of this other than prevention?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                    I'm sure we put a lot of stock in the official Pat statement.

                    This is an organization coached by someone who said the bylaws about taping had grey area, when in fact it was pretty black and white.

                    I think Walsh does have something, I don't know what exactly, but why wait this long to lay a stinker? Him waiting out so long to get his way either means he really wants to be in the spotlight, or actually has some evidence.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I'm sure we put a lot of stock in the official Pat statement.

                      This is an organization coached by someone who said the bylaws about taping had grey area, when in fact it was pretty black and white.

                      I really, really, really hope Walsh does have something, I don't know what exactly, but why wait this long to lay a stinker? Him waiting out so long to get his way either means he really wants to be in the spotlight, or actually has some evidence.
                      Fixed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                        No, it really doesn't matter anymore.

                        They're cheaters. They knew what plays were coming when the defense recieved the signals. They knew exactly what play to call or what audibles should be given.

                        The Pats have always stretched the rules, i.e. illegal contact after 5 yds, and faking injuries to save timeouts or because they dont have anyleft.

                        Walsh having something only shows that the level of which they cheat is bigger than we already know. His evidence, whatever it maybe, doesn't make them cheaters because they already are.

                        Why would Walsh holdout for 2mons, just to get his way (the Pats can't touch him legally) if he didn't have a single thing?

                        I have zero respect for BB, so it's not like I can lose anymore if Walsh does indeed have video evidence.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                          No one, not even ESPN has been able to answer my question:

                          Worst case scenario for the Pats, they cheated, what now?

                          What are the options that the league will take as punishment?

                          Suggestions will be fine.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                            I'd assume some severe fines; a lot of $$$, and probably some high draft picks. Of course, I'd love to see their titles be stripped from the record books.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NFL, ex-Pats video assistant Walsh finally agree to Spygate meeting

                              Originally posted by Kofi View Post
                              I'd assume some severe fines; a lot of $$$, and probably some high draft picks. Of course, I'd love to see their titles be stripped from the record books.
                              From what I hear that records, wins, titles, etc. won't be stripped. But you can replace money. I assume like the Colts their games are already sold out seasons in advance.

                              Draft picks can easily be replaced by trades, too.

                              Another slap on the wrist.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X