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

So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

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

  • #46
    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

    Look at the stories and pictures they use. Is that paper the national Enquirer of the Boston sports world or something? You'd think by reading and looking at it that the Boston area doesn't have world class sports organizations in nearly every way. Boston has a lot to be proud of but not according to the Herald. The only positive thing on the whole page is the 10% off ad.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

      Originally posted by travmil View Post
      It's my opinion that spygate will be remembered and forever associated with these Patriots, and it's yours that it won't. Why is it that you can have your opinion, but I can't have mine? We'll call it even and let time decide who is right.
      I have no problem with your opinion, but you are outright calling us wrong and acting as though what you are saying is fact. I never said you couldn't have your opinion, but please add 'I believe' in front of some of the things you say so I don't feel like I am being called an idiot.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

        Of couse spygate will be associated with the Patriots. The question is whether it invalidates the dynasty.

        I submit that the 17-1 record after the videotaping practices were halted suggests that the Patriots might manage to stay competitive a bit longer.

        Last year does show, however, that winning championships is incredibly hard.

        If somehow they win another or two, while facing the most scrutiny of any team in the history of sports, then even the haters will have to give them some credit.

        If it is over and they never reach another Super Bowl, then the timing will help to invalidate their accomplishments, to an unfair extent in my opinion.

        I just hope that the media is again ready to bombard Brady et. al. with questions about how the previous seasons just don't count and that there should be asterisks next to the past 7 seasons.


        Anger over such a stupid overreaction seems to be a terrific motivator, though it is amazing to expect them to continually keep up the total all-out focus -the one play at a time/ one series at a time/ one game at a time mentality. If they do, is is a testament to great coaching and to a level of psychological preparedness rarely (if ever) seen.
        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


        • #49
          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

          Hmm..

          Originally posted by Rotoworld
          Retired quarterback Jay Fielder says the Dolphins tried to steal signals from the Patriots when he played.
          "There were times in games when we knew certain defensive calls from what we were able to gather during the game or our scouts’ eyesight," Fiedler revealed. He called knowing defensive signals "a huge advantage. If the quarterback knows what’s coming, he can dissect it at the line of scrimmage."
          http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...116261&id=1309
          Last edited by Moses; 05-14-2008, 05:38 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

            The Herald jerkwad writer Tomase promises to tell the full story tomorrow:

            May 14th, 2008
            An explanation is coming
            Posted by John Tomase at 5:24 pm

            Readers of this space have probably been asking themselves, “Where the hell is Tomase?” over the last couple of days and it’s a fair query. Right now I’m just landing from Washington and working on a story about Arlen Specter’s press conference regarding his interview with Matt Walsh.

            While that is going to have me tied up for the rest of the night, I just wanted to make one thing clear ? I know I screwed up on the Rams taping story and I don’t intend to hide behind today’s apology or an editor’s note. In Friday’s Herald I will explain as clearly as I can where that story went wrong and begin the journey of restoring your trust in my reporting.

            I cannot in good conscience demand accountability of the people I cover and then not provide it myself. So it’s coming on Friday. Just be patient.

            John
            -----

            This is interesting. I hope he identifies his fake source. If your source lies, you have no reason to protect him, right?

            http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/
            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


            • #51
              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

              Hmmmm.....

              It say's nothing about videotaping.

              Hmmm.....
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                I remember back when we were saying that this was all limited solely to the Jets game... eesh.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Hmmmm.....

                  It say's nothing about videotaping.

                  Hmmm.....
                  I never said anything about video taping did I? Glad you changed up your repertoire of trolling from faces to 'Hmm..'

                  Stealing signals is stealing signals. It's alright though, I bet you are still upset that the report about the Pats taping the Rams walk through isn't true so I'll give you a break.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                    Originally posted by Moses View Post
                    I never said anything about video taping did I? Glad you changed up your repertoire of trolling from faces to 'Hmm..'

                    Stealing signals is stealing signals. It's alright though, I bet you are still upset that the report about the Pats taping the Rams walk through isn't true so I'll give you a break.
                    Stealing signals without the use of video equipment is not cheating. There is no scandal. It might be against the unwritten rules of conduct, but again, it's not cheating.

                    Read my stance about the walkthrough tape, before you make a statement about it, because it's completely off base.

                    I'm trolling? You post stories about stealing signals, in a way that isn't against the rules, and I'm trolling? I only went to 'hmm' because that's how you started off your post.

                    No, you didn't say anything about videotaping, but you were trying to make the connection that all teams do it, to make another excuse for BB getting caught cheating. When another team is found to be breaking the rules, then post it, but don't post something that's completely within the rules.

                    I've just had it with the constant justification by Pat fans. Whether it's a 'misintrepretation' or the excuse that everyone else is doing it. Again, you might as well be a Barry Bonds fan saying that him using steroids is legit and excuseable as well.

                    There is absolutely no point to your post, but yet I'm the troll.
                    Last edited by Since86; 05-15-2008, 01:44 PM.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Stealing signals without the use of video equipment is not cheating. There is no scandal. It might be against the unwritten rules of conduct, but again, it's not cheating.

                      Read my stance about the walkthrough tape, before you make a statement about it, because it's completely off base.

                      I'm trolling? You post stories about stealing signals, in a way that isn't against the rules, and I'm trolling? I only went to 'hmm' because that's how you started off your post.

                      No, you didn't say anything about videotaping, but you were trying to make the connection that all teams do it, to make another excuse for BB getting caught cheating. When another team is found to be breaking the rules, then post it, but don't post something that's completely within the rules.

                      I've just had it with the constant justification by Pat fans. Whether it's a 'misintrepretation' or the excuse that everyone else is doing it. Again, you might as well be a Barry Bonds fan saying that him using steroids is legit and excuseable as well.

                      There is absolutely no point to your post, but yet I'm the troll.
                      No point to that post? I found it interesting and relevant to this thread. Stealing signals without using videotapes may not be against the official rules, but it is almost the EXACT same thing. It is completely relevant to this thread and to think otherwise is absolutely absurd. I wasn't trying to excuse what BB did because I acknowledged that was wrong back when it first happened. I just find it hilarious how quick you are to dismiss another team stealing signals without the use of videotapes. And do not put words in my mouth..I never once tried to justify what the Pats did by saying that other teams did it. I called you a troll because saying Hmmm...before and after what you said was unnecessary..you could have simply stated what was in between. Again, I never attempted to justify what BB did..it was cheating. I don't know how many more times you want me to say that.

                      With that said, I am done here. Spygate is over unless further evidence is put forth by Walsh or whoever else. If you don't think stealing signals without the use of a camera isn't almost the same thing as stealing them with a camera, then that is your own opinion. As always, we will agree to disagree. You wont change my mind and I know damn well I wont change yours.
                      Last edited by Moses; 05-15-2008, 02:29 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                        No, it's not my opinion. Stealing signals isn't against the rules. Using video equipment is. That's the difference.

                        I have not posted my personal opinion on the matter, I have posted what is and what isn't within the rules. Find a rule that say's stealing signals by any means is prohibited, then you have a point, until then you don't have squat.

                        I'm not debating the morality of the issue, I'm debating what's allowed by rules. I have no personal opinion on stealing signals in a completely legit manner. It might be the unclassy thing to do, but it's allowed.

                        It's not cheating because every team can do it, and not have to worry about punishment. It's not cheating if it's not against the rules, and therefore it's in no way shape or form the EXACT same thing.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          No, it's not my opinion. Stealing signals isn't against the rules. Using video equipment is. That's the difference.

                          I have not posted my personal opinion on the matter, I have posted what is and what isn't within the rules. Find a rule that say's stealing signals by any means is prohibited, then you have a point, until then you don't have squat.

                          I'm not debating the morality of the issue, I'm debating what's allowed by rules. I have no personal opinion on stealing signals in a completely legit manner. It might be the unclassy thing to do, but it's allowed.

                          It's not cheating because every team can do it, and not have to worry about punishment. It's not cheating if it's not against the rules, and therefore it's in no way shape or form the EXACT same thing.
                          This is the central point where our opinions differ. I respect your opinion but disagree. Do you not consider athletes who juiced before it was against the rules to be cheaters?

                          The only difference between the two is that one uses a camera while the other uses people. So videotaping vs sitting up in the team booth with binoculars watching the sideline for signals they recognize. It really is close to the same thing in my mind. I understand that one is not against the written rules, but it really ought to be if videotaping is. They are both using different means to get to the same end. Again, I understand it is allowed, but I am asking you for your opinion..should it really be allowed? This is a forum after all..we aren't here to talk specifically about the rules..we are here to speak our minds as well.
                          Last edited by Moses; 05-15-2008, 03:02 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                            This comment from Walsh in the NY Times interview pubished today seems to indicate the relatively low importance of the sideline videos:



                            It was the kind of situation that, being the third video guy, there wasn’t anything else I necessarily needed to shoot, especially for home games. So it was said, “Go ahead and shoot the signals.”

                            maybe these were his orders:

                            OK, Matt... that is your name right? Charlie there is shooting the "all-22 shot" of game tape, you know, from a distance to see everyone. Jimmy has the tight shots of our line blocking. What can you do? I guess you could go home and mow my yard.

                            Wait... if you really want to stay you can do sideline tapes and cheerleader cheesecake shots.
                            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


                            • #59
                              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                              Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                              I remember back when we were saying that this was all limited solely to the Jets game... eesh.
                              And there's no proof saying otherwise, you guys are just bitter Colt fans...
                              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                                props for your new web site, guys!

                                http://www.tinfoilonmyhead.com/
                                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

                                Working...
                                X