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

Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

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

  • #61
    Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    It is not part of the game. The game is making plays on the ball. It should not consistent of deliberately taking guys out. Everyone on the planet understands that the NFL is an inherently risky sport and that injuries are going to happen. There is a big enough risk of guys getting injured when players are merely trying to make honest football plays. But when world class athletes are *deliberately* trying to take guys out then that multiples the risk of severe injury by an insane factor.

    This is not being blown out of proportion. Gregg Williams defenses are responsible for deliberate brutal hits on three of the greatest QB's ever. The Warner hit practically knocked him into retirement. As Shade mentioned above, the Saints were clearly trying to take Favre out of that game. And just watch that video of the 2006 Manning hit. They are clearly trying to rip his head off. I've watched practically every game that Manning has played and he has never looked as visibly heated as he did there. He understood damn well that the Redskins player was deliberately trying to hurt him. Dungy, who was closer to Manning than anyone, said that Manning wasn't quite the same after that and I believe him.

    The NFL has been under a ton of heat lately for injuries and the long term health of players. No one should be surprised when they lay the hammer on the Saints. An example must be made of them.


    This must be a hard thing for Bowen (who?) to understand: people aren't paying money to see him play, they are paying money to see Manning, Farve, Warner, Adrian Peterson, etc

    When no-name D-ends are taking out the stars of the league, that is just bad for business. And so that is another reason I expect the NFL to crack down.
    Last edited by dal9; 03-04-2012, 01:26 PM. Reason: typorillo

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

      All of this stems from the trend that began in the late 1970's, and persists today, of defenders hitting offensive ball carriers more often than making the safer and easier tackle.

      Every single week in the NFL you can watch as defenders go for the hit instead of merely tackling. In almost all cases, the tackle is the better play and is entirely possible, but hitting gets so much hype that players seem to perceive it as the first option and tackling as the second.

      Invariably, you can find a dozen or more plays per game where additional yards are gained as a result of a defender only hitting a ball carrier, rather than tackling, and failing to bring the carrier down, thus allowing him to proceed forward.


      Name-calling signature removed

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

        Don't know if this was mentioned earlier in this thread, but this must explain the "remember me" hits that Gregg Williams imposed on Peyton Manning during the Super Bowl. hmmmm
        Last edited by Mr_Smith; 03-05-2012, 07:44 AM.
        Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
          The NFL is being sued currently because players have suffered debilitating injuries after retirement. This is a lot worse than spygate because it means that the NFL brass allowed these types of bounties to occur. This will cost the NFL lots of money in the courts.

          i think Williams is suspended no less than half the season and possibly the entire season, Payton 6 games, the Saints GM who was told to stop it and didn't half the season. Looking at big fines this coming season for hits that result in hurt players.
          All those guys still crying that they are ruining the game of football will be considered dinosaurs.
          If it were my call, Williams would be given the largest allowable fine and he would be banned, period. The best thing the NFL can do is try to financially ruin him and take away his career. That is the example you want to set for anyone even remotely thinking about doing something similar in the future.

          The next thing I would do is to raise the limit on fines for such behavior on teams, coaches, GMs and players to such ridiculous limits that teams will be more than willing to relentlessly self-police themselves.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...4015992.column

            I agree with Bowen it is part of the game. This is being blown way out of proportion IMO this is the NFL this isn't college I cant believe they are going to take draft picks away.

            He is one of my favorite sports guys watch him a lot on Chicago Tribune Live
            I understand you being a young fellow and not seeing the differences all to sharply yet, but you will have to understand that the word "sport" inherently means that it is NOT a matter of life and dead.
            Not a matter of win by all cost, willing to kill your opponent, once you enter thats stage it is called war, whoever has the biggest guns wins.

            if that is Bowen's vision of the game i sincerely hope his warped mind will change sooner rather than later so his sons don't need to learn of their dad's primal behaviour that could well have cost people their life and health.

            The idea that you run risk in a violent sport like football or rugby, boxing, and all martial arts is embedded, but that is a risk based on everyone sticking to the rules, the rules that GOVERN a sport, rules that are there to make sure participants don't run mad risks.
            People breaking the rules on purpose are sick, no two ways about it, if you can not differentiate between the sport that makes you wealthy and trying to kill someone/end someone's career than you have no place in a community, you are nothing but a common criminal that should be in jail with all the other (un)succesfull law breakers.

            I am not a judge but considering the consequences of this (would you like to be the insurer ? or were you a victim?) penalties against all involved, including those no longer active should be severe.
            picks? they should thank all they can think of for still being in the league!
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

              The NFL is zeroing in on the safety aspect. But the thing that people are forgetting here is that even if safety was an afterhtought here, rules were still broken. It's a salary cap violation. The money these players were paid out of this pool is off the books, and illegal. There are big ramifications here. You get caught up in everything from a team having an unfair advantage by spending over the cap to the agents not getting their cut of any extra money. In the history of major professional sports, one thing they have all been consistent on is MAJOR penalties when salary cap rules are violated.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

                I wondered about the money issue, and maybe this was answered and I missed it, who was funding the bounty? Was it the coaches, the owner, the GM, the players, a portion of the players (such as the defensive teams), etc??
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I wondered about the money issue, and maybe this was answered and I missed it, who was funding the bounty? Was it the coaches, the owner, the GM, the players, a portion of the players (such as the defensive teams), etc??
                  Fines. (players late to meetings, chinstraps not buckled, late for team plane, missed assignments during games, etc)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

                    Originally posted by travmil View Post
                    In the history of major professional sports, one thing they have all been consistent on is MAJOR penalties when salary cap rules are violated.
                    It's true that salary cap violations are harshly penalized. Strangely though, those cases never have gotten the publicity that they would now.

                    I wonder how many people actually know that the Broncos gave an extra $29 million to John Elway and Terrell Davis under the table, won 2 super bowls in doing it, got caught and were fined $968K while losing a 3rd round pick, then got caught AGAIN and were fined $950K and lost another a 3rd round pick?

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep17.html

                    If somebody even TRIED that today, Goodell would disband the franchise.
                    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


                    • #70
                      Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      I understand you being a young fellow and not seeing the differences all to sharply yet,
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

                        I am somewhere in the middle of this issue.

                        I love good, hard, clean hits, and we all know injuries are part of the game.

                        NFL guys have all but admitted in the locker room they talk about trying to "kill the other guy" and "seperate the ball from his body".

                        Where I have a HUGE problem is where you give bonuses for injuring or having a guy carted off.

                        Sports are not war. It is acceptable to reward players for hard hits, but not for cheap shots, and certainilly not with cash.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Saints violated NFL's "Bounty Rule"

                          Originally posted by travmil View Post
                          The NFL is zeroing in on the safety aspect. But the thing that people are forgetting here is that even if safety was an afterhtought here, rules were still broken. It's a salary cap violation. The money these players were paid out of this pool is off the books, and illegal. There are big ramifications here. You get caught up in everything from a team having an unfair advantage by spending over the cap to the agents not getting their cut of any extra money. In the history of major professional sports, one thing they have all been consistent on is MAJOR penalties when salary cap rules are violated.
                          How about taking away three number ones, fining the owner $10 million and giving the owner the choice of firing Payton or losing an entire draft. They should also suspend Payton for a year if he tries to go to another team and suspend Williams for five years.... If you want to get tough, really get tough....

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X