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

Penn State accusations

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

  • Re: Penn State accusations

    McQueary's on PAID leave, he didn't quit. At this point the only thing I can think of is he's cooperating in some kind of investigation or something.

    Comment


    • He told his football tram he quit.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Re: Penn State accusations

        Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
        Well I just don't like how the media there is handling things, after the board decided to fire Joe Pa, and the president, the first question asked (by multiple people at once) is: Who's coaching the football game on saturday? That's what disturbes me about the media. There should be more said about the victims, what they've had to deal with and not about a stupid football game.
        This does kind of irk me. Whenever I catch ESPN it seems like it's crimping their style to have to think about something other than sports. Considering that these games are played by men of the correct age range to have potentionally been a victim of the abuse, it just seems really messed up.

        Seeing Millen's fury toward the end of the reaction-bit he gave was one of the few things that made me feel not totally alienated by the (tv) coverage of this.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • Re: Penn State accusations

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          I don't think Paterno's on par with Sandusky, however I guess there are just different levels of scum. Compliant scum and active scum.

          Does it make sense that I agree with both this and since?


          Ultimately I think it's just as dishonorable and immoral to be the primary actor in a heinous crime as it is to be the guy(s) chilling in the background financing it, or shielding it from the public/police, or what have you. And it's not like Since is coming out of nowhere with his reasoning: whether it's the more recent parables you always hear about the "good Germans" or Thoreau writing about the relation of a just man to unjust institutions in "Civil Disobedience," you can trace a long line of moral thought that holds no punches when it comes to the "background actors," if that makes sense.

          And yet it would seem to take a unique level of clinical perversity (or even psychopathy? general evilness?) to actually be the person shoving his penis into a 10-y/o boy. Rather than just being the dude at a desk who's too scared of potential institutional backlash to do anything about it. Both are immense failings, but imo the latter is more ordinary, more boringly human.

          I guess if we're talking about the net destruction done to young lives and who should be held accountable, I have to side with Since, since it seems like the most comprehensive and just line of reasoning. Anything other seems like shortchanging the victims. Yet if we're talking about clinical makeup and how creepy/evil/sociopathic any of the given actors may be, I'm going to agree with those who say there's something exceptional about Sandusky.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment


          • Re: Penn State accusations

            I don't think I really disagree with Since I wouldn't be upset if I found out Paterno was going to jail.

            What's that old quote

            All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


            Comment


            • Re: Penn State accusations

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              McQueary is gone. He saw the writing on the wall and fired himself.
              I heard legally he cannot be fired due to whisteblowing laws.

              Some disturbing stories coming out this morning. I will post them here in a minute

              Comment


              • Re: Penn State accusations

                Take a wild guess on who was still helping with recruiting last year.

                http://www.wyff4.com/news/29738465/d...oFYfCg.twitter

                Comment


                • Re: Penn State accusations

                  Anyone read this from espn? Sorry if already posted.


                  No, but another former Nittany Lion said he hasn't forgotten Sandusky, even as the former assistant coach stands accused of having sex with young boys.

                  Sam Stellatella, a three-position player in the 1950s, has donated money to Sandusky's defense and urged other former players to do the same.

                  "I told him he's going to need a million dollars to defend himself," the 73-year-old Stellatella said. "He called me back and said, 'What am I going to do with this money?' I said, 'Use it for your lawyer because you're going to need it.' "

                  Comment


                  • Re: Penn State accusations

                    nyone seen this yet?

                    Sandusky may face child sex abuse charges in Texas

                    SAN ANTONIO, Texas — Prosecutors in Texas have opened an investigation into the possibility of filing charges against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, police have said.

                    The move comes following the release of grand jury testimony indicating Sandusky may have sexually assaulted one of his young victims when the Penn State team was in San Antonio for the 1999 Alamo Bowl.

                    "We are looking into the possibility that an offense may have happened in San Antonio," San Antonio Police Sergeant Chris Benavides said.

                    Unsealed grand jury testimony in the Sandusky case in Pennsylvania indicates that a now 27-year-old man described in the transcript as "Victim Number Four" testified he was brought to San Antonio as part of the "Sandusky family party" to watch the Nittany Lions beat Texas A&M in the 1999 Alamo Bowl.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Penn State accusations

                      From another forum (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...-Thread/page67)

                      I work with a retired cop.
                      His explanation is this... in the past, when he was called to a "burglary" it was often reduced to "theft." And it wasn't his call. He would do what his superiors asked. When crime is low, you want statistics to reinforce that. And the greater area--town or city or county--want crime statistics to be low. It makes the area appear safe and most of the time they are safe. Then there are outlier stats that don't fit in with the usual stats. Efforts are made to reduce them.

                      This is common nationwide. And it's not unusual at all. In my opinion, it is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

                      It appears Curley may have wanted things to appear less severe b/c of the over-arching consequences of a larger crime. And for that--and many other retarded decisions--he should be JAILED for a very long time.

                      There is no doubt in my mind that many involved in this scandal have a CYA file at home. (Cover Your *** file). And that file is probably loaded with proof of every single thing they were involved in, including memo's that proved they were trying to have the pedophilia investigated with no help form the higher ups. My coworker still has his CYA file to this day. There is no doubt in my mind that McQueary is still employed for 2 reasons... 1.) he has a CYA file and dares them to fire him... and 2.) I think he falls under the protection of Whistle-blower laws in PA.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Penn State accusations

                        http://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/sta...77450316120064
                        Interesting. RT @CBSSportsPSU: #nittanylions Report: UVa coach contacted about job, not interested bit.ly/tLiT1R

                        Comment


                        • Re: Penn State accusations

                          Here is a post on a running board from a PSU Alum, who held American records in distance running ... WARNING - GRAPHIC

                          "Maybe you are still Penn State, but I am not.

                          I am requesting that any association between myself and Penn State be terminated. All references linking me to Penn State -- in text or images in Penn State media guides and the PSU Hall of Shame -- shall be removed permanently. I do not bleed blue and white, I bleed red. I could give a damn about the institution whose negligence created the atmosphere and opportunity for a monster to stalk the community for victims. I’m outraged by the misconduct by those enablers who allowed this scandal to happen.

                          I’m turning my back on you and all those who still support Penn State.

                          If I were to drive down to Penn State All Sports Museum tomorrow, with an HD video recorder and a can of spray paint in hand, and spray-painted over an image of myself “**** YOU JOE”. Do you think the university would sit on the incident and do nothing for 13 years?

                          Penn State Football has never been the lily-white program that has been portrayed. It was an isolated an untouchable regime, a culture that was cultivated by Joe Paterno and enabled by blind and diffident University officials and an adoring fan base. It was corrupt to the core.

                          The Sandusky child rape incidents were not an anomaly. They were the culmination of the leitmotiv that had spanned decades.

                          In 1973, Penn State quarterback Tom Shuman raped a freshman student. Paterno himself got involved and intimidated the girl, and charges never saw the light of day. I have no doubt that over Paterno’s storied career on the field there were many other such misdeeds off of it, this latest one being exposed only because of the heinousness and repulsiveness of crimes. Had it been merely another rape, you would have never heard a thing.

                          If you don’t believe what I just said then copy it and send it to Paterno, his high profile legal team, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the interim football coach Tom Bradley. Please…. make my day. Pablo knows where to find me.

                          Why do you think that Sandusky was butt-****ing little boys in the Penn State showers? Ask yourself that question. The answer is easy – because the Penn State showers were a safe zone for him. He knew it.

                          What the hell was he doing taking showers little boys in the first place?

                          Who the hell thought sleepovers were a good idea?

                          “Horseplay” and “soap games” in the showers? WTF? I don’t remember anything like that when I was at Penn State.

                          There were no grown-ups to be found anywhere at Penn State. Not once did anyone say, “Sleepovers? What the **** is the matter with you?”

                          Had Sandusky been screwing his WIFE in the Penn State lockerrooms, that would have been grounds for dismissal. Butt-****ing little boys? Let’s have a meeting at Joe’s house. Then another meeting. Let’s not rush to judgment here, ....

                          Right or wrong, Joe Paterno WAS the ultimate authority at Penn State. Nothing ever happened in Happy Valley without Joe knowing it. NOTHING. It is an insular culture much like the Mafia or the Nike Corporation. Paterno had his own set of rules. Wonder why Mike McCreary didn’t do more than he did? If he broke the code of omerta and he’d never, ever, have a coaching career.

                          Many of Sandusky’s victims would not have been, had it not been for one man: JOE PATERNO, and his wiliness to protect his close friend, Sandusky.

                          If you read the chronology of the Penn State can you honestly say that at any other football program in the land that Sandusky would have had access to Penn State facilities, even after it was known he was raping little boys? Can you say that?

                          In the end it was Joe Paterno himself, who showed what he was made of. The lasting images of Joe Paterno’s legacy was on full display for the world to see: a vacuous student body in full support of a senile old man with a corrupt soul. Paterno was shown falling-down drunk on a Grande narcissistic cocktail, in front of hundreds of revelers, as they conducted a pep-rally on his yard – completely oblivious to gravity of the scandal, and the despicable conduct that occurred because of the environment that he had created."

                          Comment


                          • Re: Penn State accusations

                            While I don't doubt that guys story here I don't buy that Joe Pa was the most powerful person at Penn State. Most recognizable yes. Especially since this took more than him covering it up and in the end even he was expendable. Like I said there's a reason the DA disappeared from that case he's the only person brave enough to expose all this and say it was wrong.

                            Joe Pa, and the rest of the coaching staff would've shared that same fate as well...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Penn State accusations

                              This whole situation is just so surreal, and keeps getting even more and more bizarre with each passing report.

                              This is the kind of thing that can completely destroy an institution. And, in this case, it looks to be deserved.

                              Just unreal.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Penn State accusations

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Didn't realize he was a ginger. That explains a lot.
                                I'm baffled that these jokes are socially acceptable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X