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

Life of Reilly:Don't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Life of Reilly:Don't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/st...ine&id=3737653


    Donovan McNabb is getting $6.3M this year to play in the NFL, and yet was clueless that a regular-season game can end in a tie after one overtime. Then he added, "I'd hate to see what happens in the Super Bowl. You'd have to settle with a tie."

    (Sound of America slapping its forehead.)

    Oy. It'd be like a pro golfer going, "You mean I have to get it all the way into the stupid hole?" So I devised a little unscientific quiz to see if it's just Duhnovan who's brain-dead about his line of work, or if other players are rules-challenged too. Cover your eyes. It's not pretty.

    Q: What does happen in the playoffs if the game is tied after the first overtime?

    * Sam Madison, CB, Giants: "Are they gonna do a coin toss? The rule needs to be changed."
    * Shaun O'Hara, C, Giants: "Yeah, we don't want the Super Bowl decided by a coin flip."

    Correct answer: Play continues until one team scores.

    Q: How many points do you get for returning a blocked PAT all the way?

    * Calvin Pace, LB, Jets: "Two? Isn't that the rule in college?"
    * Kerry Rhodes, S, Jets: "Wait, you're trying to trick me. It's either two or none. I say none."
    * Nick Mangold, C, Jets: "Seven? I have no idea."
    * Dustin Keller, TE, Jets: "I think it's two."
    * Madison: "Two."

    Correct answer: Zero.

    Q: If a punt is in the air while the game clock expires and the receiver signals and makes a fair catch, is the game over?

    * Danny Clark, LB, Giants: "Yes."
    * Madison: "Yes."
    * Damon Huard, QB, Chiefs: "If the punter touched it, then the game is over."
    * Ray Rice, RB, Ravens: "Yes."
    * Pace: "Yes. It's an untimed play, isn't it?"

    Correct answer: No, the receiving team can try a fair-catch kick.

    Q: What is a fair-catch kick?

    * Brendon Ayanbadejo, LB, Ravens: "The ball is put on the tee, or maybe there's a holder holding it, but there's nobody covering."
    * Jarret Johnson, LB, Ravens: "You kick from the 50, off the tee. You can cover it. We've gone over it in meetings, but you don't practice it because it's the kicker kicking off a tee."

    Correct answer: A fair-catch kick is a field goal attempt following a fair catch. It can be a placekick or dropkick, but no tee may be used. It cannot be defensed.

    Q: What is the penalty for running into the kicker on a quick kick?

    * Clark: "Personal foul."
    * Jonathan Goff, LB, Giants: "Same as on a normal punt."
    * O'Hara: "Personal foul."
    * Ayanbadejo: "Roughing the kicker? Automatic first down? No, wait! If he's showing that he's running the ball, then you can hit him just like anybody else."
    * Johnson: "Fifteen yards and a first down."
    * Chester Pitts, G, Texans: "It's a 15-yard penalty. If you annihilate him, I guarantee someone will throw a flag."
    * Eric Barton, LB, Jets: "No idea."
    * Pace: "There isn't a penalty. I just took a wild guess on that one."

    Correct answer: No penalty.

    Q: What's the maximum number of challenges a coach can make in a game if he's always right?

    * Clark: "As many as he wants."
    * Goff: "Two per half."
    * O'Hara: "Four."
    * Barton: "If he's right, why stop him?"
    * Pace: "Six."
    * Mangold: "I don't know. There goes my coaching gig."
    * Rhodes: "Three. You're not going to get me."

    Correct answer: Three.

    Q: When can the first-string QB reenter the game if the third-string quarterback is inserted before the fourth quarter?

    * Huard: "After the fourth quarter, the first-string quarterback can come in."
    * Johnson: "You have to declare who your first- and second-string quarterbacks are?"
    * Pitts: "They're interchangeable. If someone wanted to wake up and start the third quarterback and then put in the first quarterback on the next series, they could."

    Correct answer: Never. If the third quarterback is inserted before the fourth quarter, a team's first two quarterbacks cannot be used in the game at any position.

    Q: Can the kicking team recover its own blocked punt and advance?

    * Johnson: "No, it's dead."
    * Barton: "I don't think you can advance a blocked punt."
    * Mangold: "Don't know, great question."

    Correct answer: Yes, if the kick is caught or received behind the line of scrimmage.

    Q: Are most of these players very much hoping their coaches don't read this?

    Correct answer: Yes.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

    Horrible article, but informative.

    He asks questions that are really of no consequence, unlike OT rules. Why in the world you not be able to put your 1st string QB back into a game if the 3rd string QB is put in before the 4th qtr is beyond me. That's one of the stupidest rules I think I've ever read. Why in the world players would know that is even more of a puzzle. That's such a ticky tack question. Why in the world players would need to know that answer?

    WTF is a fair catch kick? And why can't it be defensed?

    All Rick did was make my head hurt.
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

      Yeah, that wasn't really fair. Aside from the question on challenges, most of those were way more obscure than the overtime rule. At least it seems that way to me.

      The PAT return rule is something I've always wondered, though.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Horrible article, but informative.

        He asks questions that are really of no consequence, unlike OT rules. Why in the world you not be able to put your 1st string QB back into a game if the 3rd string QB is put in before the 4th qtr is beyond me. That's one of the stupidest rules I think I've ever read. Why in the world players would know that is even more of a puzzle. That's such a ticky tack question. Why in the world players would need to know that answer?

        WTF is a fair catch kick? And why can't it be defensed?

        All Rick did was make my head hurt.
        Fair enough. Though I do think he made his point that while the OT rule may be more know by the overall audience there are many rules (like the playoff game ending in a tie question) that many people would think they would know that they did not.

        A fair catch kid (from the way I read it) if where you fair catch a punt and as soon as you catch it you try to kick it through the uprights for 3 points. I have no clue why it can not be defensed.


        Originally posted by indytoad View Post
        Yeah, that wasn't really fair. Aside from the question on challenges, most of those were way more obscure than the overtime rule. At least it seems that way to me.

        The PAT return rule is something I've always wondered, though.
        Same here. I have to be honest I thought you could take it back for 2 points.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

          Originally posted by juadam09 View Post
          Fair enough. Though I do think he made his point that while the OT rule may be more know by the overall audience there are many rules (like the playoff game ending in a tie question) that many people would think they would know that they did not.
          Yeah, but he insults the players.

          "So I devised a little unscientific quiz to see if it's just Duhnovan who's brain-dead about his line of work, or if other players are rules-challenged too. Cover your eyes. It's not pretty."

          If it was an article about how stupid NFL rules are, then it's a lot better of an article. Calling them brain-dead, and rules-challenged is completely out of line.
          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

            Rick Reilly has a history of lazy columns but this might be a new low. Looks like it took him about 90 minutes to come up with this piece of fluff.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

              Something I've been wondering since this whole business started (like three weeks ago, why are people still talking about it?): has there ever been a double-overtime game in the NFL playoffs?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

                Didn't the Panthers beat the Rams in double OT the year they went to the SB?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

                  Yep, you're right:

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

                  Looks like there have been five double-overtime games in the history of the league.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Horrible article, but informative.

                    He asks questions that are really of no consequence, unlike OT rules. Why in the world you not be able to put your 1st string QB back into a game if the 3rd string QB is put in before the 4th qtr is beyond me. That's one of the stupidest rules I think I've ever read. Why in the world players would know that is even more of a puzzle. That's such a ticky tack question. Why in the world players would need to know that answer?

                    WTF is a fair catch kick? And why can't it be defensed?

                    All Rick did was make my head hurt.
                    The 3rd string QB rule is in effect if your 3rd string QB is declared the emergency QB - once he enters it's assumed the 1st string QB is injured too badly to play.

                    However I don't think he worded it right because I believe a coach can have 3 QB's active - not have the 3rd QB be the emergency QB, just coaches never do because they don't want to waste the roster spot. I'm not 100% on that, I just don't know why a team couldn't if they wanted to.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

                      For what it's worth, the fair catch kick rule does come up every once in awhile.

                      (edit-twice this decade, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_catch_kick)

                      Anytime you are receiving a punt you can of course call for a fair catch.

                      You have the option of a free kick from the point of the fair catch- no defenders, so a long field goal is actually more likely since a low trajectory is OK. You also don't have to go back 7 or 8 yards from the line of scrimmage- you kick from the line of scrimmage.

                      In the Arizona-NY Giants game a few weeks ago, the Cardinals tried one and missed the 68-yarder just before halftime.
                      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: Life of Reillyon't hate Donovan. He's not the only player drawing a blank.

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                        The 3rd string QB rule is in effect if your 3rd string QB is declared the emergency QB - once he enters it's assumed the 1st string QB is injured too badly to play.

                        However I don't think he worded it right because I believe a coach can have 3 QB's active - not have the 3rd QB be the emergency QB, just coaches never do because they don't want to waste the roster spot. I'm not 100% on that, I just don't know why a team couldn't if they wanted to.
                        This is correct



                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                        For what it's worth, the fair catch kick rule does come up every once in awhile.

                        (edit-twice this decade, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_catch_kick)

                        Anytime you are receiving a punt you can of course call for a fair catch.

                        You have the option of a free kick from the point of the fair catch- no defenders, so a long field goal is actually more likely since a low trajectory is OK. You also don't have to go back 7 or 8 yards from the line of scrimmage- you kick from the line of scrimmage.

                        In the Arizona-NY Giants game a few weeks ago, the Cardinals tried one and missed the 68-yarder just before halftime.

                        Correct.

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCBBUMnRqbo

                        But a fair catch was never called, at least not one that I saw. Still a exciting play. Makes me miss having NFLLP

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X