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

  • So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

    To paraphrase Roger Goodell when on Mike & Mike recently,

    Goodell:

    If all Mr. Walsh has to offer are additional examples of sideline taping of coaching signals in games, then it is not significant. I reviewed 6 tapes in September, and also notes from earlier instances where the tapes were not in existence. I came to the full understanding that Coach Belichick has had the same interpretation of the rules during his entire coaching tenure. I took all of that into account, the fact that sideline taping of coaching signals for future analysis extends all the way back to the beginnings of his coaching career, when the harsh penalties were assessed."

    It's over. Nobody will be re-punished for the same offense for which the largest punishment in NFL history was already handed down. The appropriate punishment was meted out.

    bottom line on the past 4 months of spygate:

    The Boston Herald and ESPN used unnamed sources, led everyone to believe it was Mr. Walsh, and apparently falsely alleged that the Patriots made a tape of the Rams Super Bowl walkthrough. The persons who need to be punished additionally are Tomase of the Herald and Fish of ESPN for making up a huge story days before the Super Bowl. Now Fish seems to be trying to cover his butt by spinning a non-story as a story. It will be interesting to see if Tomase does the same.

    Robert Kraft probably will not pursue libel charges, since this story would only be kept alive by that action, but a part of me wishes he would, to curb future drive-by journalism
    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!).

  • #2
    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

    Well what other ending could the NFL possibly afford here? Seriously it took this long for something to come out of this and this was it? One would think that if there was nothing there this would've been resolved as soon as it broke. I'm sure the NFL and Walsh had some sort of agreement about what can be released and can't... I find it hard to believe he did all this posturing for nothing I mean wouldn't Kraft sue him?


    That being said regardless the NFL can't afford to have Spygate blow up because I don't believe the Patriots are alone in this regard I really don't. The lack of outrage from the rest of the league kind of tells me this. It would be in Goodell's and the NFL's best interest to not have this blow up.

    Personally I could care less of the Patriots did this because I doubt they were alone I hated them long before this and I will hate them long after Spygate has very little to do with it.

    BUT Goodell didn't do himself and the league any favors when he tried to destroy the evidence to begin with the coverup is always worse than the "crime"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

      How do you read that first sentence as it being over?

      It starts with the word "if." "If it's over," is what it says, it doesn't say, 'it's over.'


      Goodell and Walsh haven't even met yet, so how do we know what he has? We don't. Goodell is only saying that if he has more evidence that he taped regular season games from the sidelines then no more punishment will be handed out.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        How do you read that first sentence as it being over?

        It starts with the word "if." "If it's over," is what it says, it doesn't say, 'it's over.'


        Goodell and Walsh haven't even met yet, so how do we know what he has? We don't. Goodell is only saying that if he has more evidence that he taped regular season games from the sidelines then no more punishment will be handed out.
        Yeah, the title is mis-leading, from the title of this thread I thought the meeting had already taken place....

        But it's actually like the 16th, isn't it?
        Last edited by Lord Helmet; 05-08-2008, 12:34 PM.
        Super Bowl XLI Champions
        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




        Comment


        • #5
          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          How do you read that first sentence as it being over?
          Words from the NFL certainly say it's over, and Walsh was required to turn over all evidence by yesterday.

          league spokesman Greg Aiello saying: "This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew."

          source: associated press

          http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...1KfeQD90HEBS80
          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


          • #6
            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

            "... and against Pittsburgh in the 2002 AFC championship game."

            God, Belichick is such a dick.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              How do you read that first sentence as it being over?
              Obviously he was wearing his Belichick spy glasses when he read it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                No, I am listening to the words of Roger Goodell on Mike and Mike a couple of weeks back, and more importantly the more recent words of Mr. Aiello. Grace, are you incapable of interpreting their own words?

                The position was clearly staked out: If the "new evidence" from Mr. Walsh was found to be just more examples of sideline videotaping of signals, then it is not new at all, since punishment in September was based upon the understanding and the admission that this had gone on.

                I find it incredibly convenient the stance I read above:

                1) We are willing to believe evidence AGAINST the Patriots is grounds for more and more punishment

                and at the same time

                2) We believe that the absence of any new evidence would be (and now is) merely a reflection of a vast conspiracy by the NFL to save their product, that the Patriots are guility of everything that anyone might imagine (including global warming and the price of gas), and that Goodell is keeping us from learning this truth.

                With those two beliefs, no matter what evidence is presented, we can comfortably adopt the exact same stance: the Patriots are guilty of everything, facts be damned.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-08-2008, 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


                • #9
                  Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                  You're completely missing the point.

                  The statement doesn't say it's over. It say's is over IF Walsh doesn't have any new evidence.

                  It doesn't say that it's over, it says it's over IF....

                  Again, let me say that one more time. It doesn't say that it's over, it say's it's over IF Walsh doesn't have any new evidence.

                  Your title and your bottom line present it as completely over, and that's not what the statement says.

                  You read it as over, everyone recognizes that two letter word at the beginning.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                    maybe this can clarify things for you:

                    Sports Illustrated:

                    "There's no there there.''

                    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1

                    Originally posted by SI
                    That's pretty much the whole ball game right there, isn't it? Walsh will have his long-awaited meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell next Tuesday in New York, and maybe he'll flesh out some more details of the Patriots' espionage. But we now know that there's no big hammer headline to come. No suspension to be handed down...

                    "Thanks for coming, and drive home safely.'' To call it anticlimactic will register as understatement. And I can't say that I'd be able to blame the NFL or the Patriots if they're more than a bit chafed over the whole Walsh affair...

                    Walsh doesn't have anything that proves they were guilty of the smarmy charge that they taped their opponent's practice the day before New England's first Super Bowl win in 2002.

                    Any way you cut it, that accusation was at the heart of the Matt Walsh saga. And it didn't stick. It didn't stand up. It remains nothing more than an unsubstantiated report. A rumor.

                    Not surprisingly, we're all left to look back and wonder what all the fuss was about? In the end, there was no there there when it comes to the Patriots and their opponent's 2002 Super Bowl walkthrough. With that, Spygate finally seems to have at long last run its course. For Walsh, it will soon be time to head back to Hawaii and the golf course. His 15 minutes of fame lasted a lot closer to 15 weeks, but it's almost over.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-08-2008, 04:29 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


                    • #11
                      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      The statement doesn't say it's over. It say's is over IF Walsh doesn't have any new evidence.
                      Fact 1: the evidence was required to be turned over by Walsh yesterday.

                      Fact 2: Walsh's attorney last night described in detail the nature of all of the evidence that his client had already sent to the NFL earlier in the day

                      Fact 3: based upon the information from the lawyer, last night, after hearing the summary from Walsh's lawyer, the NFL spokesman says that the evidence described is merely "consistent with what we already knew"

                      I guess technically Walsh's lawyer could be lying, the NFL could look at the tapes and see something there that apparently neither Walsh nor his lawyer understood or that Walsh did not tell his lawyer. In that case, it isn't over. Does this scenario seem likely to you?
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                        Meh, I called this several days ago. No big surprise to me.

                        Hopefully the loss of this year's first-rounder, coupled with the Super Bowl loss, will force Beli to eat some humble pie for a change. Lord knows he needs some.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                          I doubt this changes anything. The Pats have a rediculously easy schedule this year, and the attitude that they are untouchable now.

                          Welcome to Hell, I mean the NFL.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                            ESPN ticker says the tapes will be released to the media on Tuesday.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                              Fact 1: the evidence was required to be turned over by Walsh yesterday.

                              Fact 2: Walsh's attorney last night described in detail the nature of all of the evidence that his client had already sent to the NFL earlier in the day

                              Fact 3: based upon the information from the lawyer, last night, after hearing the summary from Walsh's lawyer, the NFL spokesman says that the evidence described is merely "consistent with what we already knew"

                              I guess technically Walsh's lawyer could be lying, the NFL could look at the tapes and see something there that apparently neither Walsh nor his lawyer understood or that Walsh did not tell his lawyer. In that case, it isn't over. Does this scenario seem likely to you?

                              How about you step back and quit trying to argue and actually look at what I was saying, it might help a bit.

                              I wasn't talking about the facts of the case. I was talking about the original statement you posted and what it actually said, and what you were trying to say it said.

                              Everyone, but you, read that tiny little word towards the beginning, which changed the whole way you interpreted it. I wasn't saying the report was wrong, never cited anything else, just that you were jumping to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the statement you posted.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X