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

Andre Carter on gregg williams and bounties

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

  • Andre Carter on gregg williams and bounties

    Not that I would ever expect a player to admit to a bounty program, but take this article FWIW

    http://www.homermcfanboy.com/2012/03...-and-bounties/

    The Washington Redskins have been associated with seemingly every big story the NFL has had this offseason.

    Local fans are still reeling from the league’s decision to penalize the Redskins for salary cap decisions that were made during an (allegedly) uncapped year.

    That announcement, of course, came just days after one of the biggest trades in football history which will hopefully bring Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III to D.C.

    But before all of that, there was a huge controversy involving a former member of the Washington coaching staff that had everyone questioning the integrity of the game.

    Gregg Williams, who oversaw the defense under head coach Joe Gibbs, found himself in the league’s crosshairs after an NFL investigation found that his New Orleans Saints defense had a bounty system from 2009-2011 involving more than 20 players.

    From there, it was only a matter of time before people began second-guessing every other stop in Williams’ coaching career — including Washington.

    While that was to be expected, I can honestly say I was a bit surprised when this controversy was then linked to the one headline of the offseason the Redskins had managed to avoid — Peyton Manning.

    Turns out, that former Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy is convinced Manning’s neck issues all started back in 2006 against the Redskins.*

    *Here’s a video of the play, for those who are interested.

    “Earlier in the game, I’m outraged that there was a flag for roughing-the-passer on Dwight Freeney for just grazing the quarterback’s helmet,” Dungy said. “So I’m yelling at the ref [Scott Green], ‘Where’s the flag! Where’s the flag!’ And I don’t yell much, but I did then. So I didn’t notice Peyton calling timeout and being shaken up. Peyton came to the sideline and said to [backup] Jim Sorgi, ‘Jim, start warming up.’ As the timeout went on, he said to us, ‘I can stay in, but we need to run the ball here.”’

    “Then we sort of forgot about it at halftime, and Peyton seemed fine,” Dungy continued. “He lit it up in the second half. He was on fire [throwing for 244 yards and three touchdowns]. But that’s the year we started cutting back on his throws at practice. I’m not putting two plus two together. I just figure he’s getting older and he needs some time off, he’s made enough throws. But now, as I look back on it, there’s no doubt in my mind that this was the start of his neck problems.”

    That story by Dungy led Peter King, of Sports Illustrated, to write the following:

    “There’s no evidence that Washington’s defenders had a bounty out on Manning that night. But it’s a question, surely, that begs to be asked. And if I were one of the league investigators interviewing Williams today, it’s certainly something I’d explore.”

    King isn’t the only person to wonder whether or not Washington defenders purposely tried to injure Manning that night, so I went straight to the source and asked former Redskins defensive end Andre Carter to shed some light on the play and on Gregg Williams in general.


    When the Gregg Williams controversy broke, more than a few mainstream media wondered if a particular play involving you, Phil Daniels and Peyton Manning back in ‘06 might have had something to do with all of this bounty talk. First of all, do you remember the play in question?

    “Yeah, I remember it,” Carter said. “That was just one of those plays when both of us were coming from our side of the field and we met in the middle. It’s just one of those fluke plays that happens in football sometimes. We’re not trying to take that guy out. One of us happened to hit him high and one of us hit him low, but it’s not like either of us wanted to try and take the guy out.”

    With that in mind, how do you respond to people questioning
    whether you’d purposely try to injure Manning or anyone else to pocket some extra money?

    “That talk doesn’t sit well with me at all,” Carter said. “At the end of the day, we’re talking about someone else’s career. Why would I try to jeopardize someone else’s career while they’re trying to make a living? I enjoy my job too much to do something like that and I definitely believe in karma. I mean, I wouldn’t want someone to try and do that to me. That’s just not part of the game. I don’t like to hear people criticize or question the way we play, but at the end of the day we were just trying to make a play on the ball. It was fluky and it was unfortunate, but we never tried to take him out of the game. That’s just nonsense.”

    Unfortunately, we live in a world where people love to rush to judgment without knowing anything about the situation. Could you talk a little bit about what Gregg Williams was like when you played for him.

    “I played for Gregg for a while and I never once saw him stand up in front of us and say, ‘I want you to take this guy out,’” Carter said. “That just wasn’t his style. Now, people who have been around him or played for him know Gregg is very aggressive. He takes pride in what he does and wants the best from his players. In general, when he talks, we listen.
    “He’s kind of like an old school general in the matter-of-fact way he does his job,” he continued. “He tells you, ‘We need to stop the run and rush the passer.’ He wants you to be physical and to outmatch their tempo. There are plenty of offenses out there that want to get physical and hit you in the mouth, so his mindset is never going to be to just take it and like it. Those are the things he always emphasized with us, but it was never about trying to take a guy out or hurt someone else so he’ll give you this much money. That just wasn’t Gregg’s mentality.”

    What was your relationship like with Williams?

    “He knows his players and he knows how to use them,” Carter said. “For a veteran player like myself, he didn’t really need to talk to me that much in terms of what needs to be done. Because I know what I need to do once we step out onto that field. But as far as a younger guy or a rookie, he would definitely talk to them more because he wanted to guide them in the right direction to help them become a better player. Did he ever get in someone’s face or yell at them? Yeah, because he expects a lot from his players whether they’re young or old. But like I said, he takes pride in what he does and loves the game.”

    Point blank: was there a bounty system at any point during your time in Washington?

    “When I was with the Washington Redskins there was no bounty system. Period,” Carter said.

  • #2
    Re: Andre Carter on gregg williams and bounties

    With the info that Manning quite possibly was injured on that play afterall I wonder if Williams owes any bounty money afterall?

    Green?
    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


    • #3
      Re: Andre Carter on gregg williams and bounties

      I was at that game. Saw the play right in front of me. I thought I had seen the last of Peyton Manning.

      Thankfully, it just pissed him off, and he came back in the 2nd half and mutilated them. Then went on to win us a Super Bowl.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Andre Carter on gregg williams and bounties

        Originally posted by Day-V View Post
        I was at that game. Saw the play right in front of me. I thought I had seen the last of Peyton Manning.

        Thankfully, it just pissed him off, and he came back in the 2nd half and mutilated them. Then went on to win us a Super Bowl.
        He should have been pissed at his offensive line......

        Anyways, I actually thought it was a bad hit but I did not think anything of it. I honestly remember being surprised when he took that time-out

        Comment

        Working...
        X