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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • Re: Non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by dal9 View Post
    nfl just released statement saying that simultaneous possession in the end zone (only) IS reviewable. but they say the refs got it right.
    LOL LOL LOL


    Comment


    • Re: Non-Colts thread

      sort of:

      NFL sez: they missed the PI call, but the call on the reception was correctly upheld upon review.

      "Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.

      "While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

      "When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

      "Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

      "Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

      "The result of the game is final."

      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-been-flagged/
      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


      • Re: Non-Colts thread

        Really?

        Really?

        They need to look up the word "simultaneous" in the dictionary.

        It doesn't mean in this case "after somebody catches it and then after they roll around on the ground for a while, this is the first time to take a look, and thus if two people in fact have hands on the ball, that means it's simultaneous"
        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


        • Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Nope. there is a clause in the CBA that players can walk if they feel their safety is being compromised.
          Nope on your nope.

          You can download the CBA here.

          http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...-2011-2020.pdf



          Quoting from page 22

          "Section 1. No Strike/Lockout: Except as otherwise provided in Article 47 (Union Security), Section 6, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim that a party has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the party will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts."
          Article 47, Section 6 (pasted below) involves "union security" which may sound like "player safety" to the uninformed, but actually involves the power of the union to compel all players to pay union dues. (Specifically, if a court holds in the future that the NFLPA can't compel payment of dues, the NFLPA can reopen the CBA negotations or begin a strike).


          Article 47, Section 6. Procedure for Enforcement:
          (a) Upon written notification to the Management Council by the NFLPA that a player has not paid any initiation fee, dues or the equivalent service fee in violation of Section 1 of this Article, the Management Council will within seven days consider the matter. If there is no resolution of the matter within seven days, then the Club will, upon notification of the NFLPA, suspend the player without pay. Such suspension will con-tinue until the NFLPA has notified the Club in writing that the suspended player has satisfied his obligation as contained in Section 1 of this Article. The parties hereby agree that suspension without pay is adopted as a substitute for and in lieu of discharge as the penalty for a violation of the union security clause of the Agreement and that no player will be discharged for a violation of that clause. The player’s contract will be tolled dur-ing the period of any such suspension. A copy of all notices required by this “Procedure for the Enforcement of the Union Security Agreement Between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA” will be simultaneously mailed to the player involved and the Management Council.
          (b) It is further agreed that the term “member in good standing” as used in this Article applies only to payment of dues or initiation fee and not any other factors involved in union discipline.
          (c) It is further agreed that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, if at any time in the term of the Agreement, any court or agency shall wholly or partially invalidate the provisions of this Article relating to Union Security, then the NFLPA may reopen this Agreement upon the giving of 10 days’ written notice, with reference solely
          to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will have an obligation to resume negotiations limited to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will be free to engage in whatever concerted or other action may be permitted by law in support of their positions.


          So unless there is something directly contradictory to this in the CBA (and I looked in the places where it might be), walking out is not an option

          edit: sorry for the messed up formatting
          Last edited by dal9; 09-25-2012, 12:58 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Non-Colts thread

            I don't disagree with it being an INT, but I don't blame the refs for making the call. In real time you couldn't tell exactly who had it when. While it definitely looked like a pick in the replays I am not sure there was definite evidence. Like others have said too, I'm not sure the regular refs would've gotten it right. The OPI you can't argue though. That was obvious.

            Comment


            • Re: Non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
              Nope on your nope.

              You can download the CBA here.

              http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...-2011-2020.pdf



              Quoting from page 22 "Section 1. No Strike/Lockout: Except as otherwise provided in Article 47 (Union Security), Section 6, neither the NFLPA nor any of its members will engage in any strike, work stoppage, or other concerted action interfering with the operations of the NFL or any Club for the duration of this Agreement, and no Clubs, either individually or in concert with other Clubs, will engage in any lockout for the duration of this Agreement. Any claim that a party has violated this Section 1 will not be subject to the grievance procedure or the arbitration provisions of this Agreement and the party will have the right to submit such claim directly to the courts."

              Article 47, Section 6 (pasted below) involves "union security" which may sound like "player safety" to the uninformed, but actually involves the power of the union to compel all players to pay union dues. (Specifically, if a court holds in the future that the NFLPA can't compel payment of dues, the NFLPA can reopen the CBA negotations or begin a strike).



              Article 47, Section 6. Procedure for Enforcement:
              (a) Upon written notification to the Management Council by the NFLPA that a player has not paid any initiation fee, dues or the equivalent service fee in violation of Section 1 of this Article, the Management Council will within seven days consider the matter. If there is no resolution of the matter within seven days, then the Club will, upon notification of the NFLPA, suspend the player without pay. Such suspension will con-tinue until the NFLPA has notified the Club in writing that the suspended player has satisfied his obligation as contained in Section 1 of this Article. The parties hereby agree that suspension without pay is adopted as a substitute for and in lieu of discharge as the penalty for a violation of the union security clause of the Agreement and that no player will be discharged for a violation of that clause. The player’s contract will be tolled dur-ing the period of any such suspension. A copy of all notices required by this “Procedure for the Enforcement of the Union Security Agreement Between the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA” will be simultaneously mailed to the player involved and the Management Council.
              (b) It is further agreed that the term “member in good standing” as used in this Article applies only to payment of dues or initiation fee and not any other factors involved in union discipline.
              (c) It is further agreed that notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, if at any time in the term of the Agreement, any court or agency shall wholly or partially invalidate the provisions of this Article relating to Union Security, then the NFLPA may reopen this Agreement upon the giving of 10 days’ written notice, with reference solely
              to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will have an obligation to resume negotiations limited to the issue of Union Security, and both parties will be free to engage in whatever concerted or other action may be permitted by law in support of their positions.



              So unless there is something directly contradictory to this in the CBA (and I looked in the places where it might be), walking out is not an option

              edit: sorry for the messed up formatting
              I agree the clause you are referencing is not about this, but I find it hard to believe that the Union has no repercussions to the NFL if they believe that player safety is being compromised.


              Comment


              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                While it definitely looked like a pick in the replays I am not sure there was definite evidence.
                [head explodes]

                Comment


                • Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I agree the clause you are referencing is not about this, but I find it hard to believe that the Union has no repercussions to the NFL if they believe that player safety is being compromised.
                  I guess I don't know what to say to that, except "let me know if you (or DD) find it in the CBA."

                  Comment


                  • Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                    I guess I don't know what to say to that, except "let me know if you (or DD) find it in the CBA."
                    I don't have time to look through the CBA, so I'm not gonna say you're wrong, I just find it hard to believe.


                    Also, DD, is now, claiming it was a catch. This is making my head hurt.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Non-Colts thread

                      I just don't see how anyone can watch that and say Tate got to the ball the same time as Jennings. It's just not even close IMO. In fact, to me it looks like Tate's arms are still moving toward the ball as Jennings already has it in his hands.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Non-Colts thread

                        The only point I can fathom for striking players is to argue to a judge that the use replacement referees represent a drastic change in the work environment that could not have been anticipated at the time that the agreement was signed.

                        I don't think that would fly, since when the agreement was signed, the timeline for expiration of the last agreement with the officials was known to both parties.

                        Since the language is pretty specific, I don't see much wiggle room. A judge could declare striking players in violation of the CBA and grant the league major damages, such as a bigger cut of TV revenue.

                        A player's strike seems unworkable.

                        The fans have the only power to use. We are addicted to the product though. We are on crack and have to turn away from the crack until they make better crack. can we do that? I'm nearing the point where I think I can. I didn't tune in until the 4th Q last night, for example.
                        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


                        • Re: Non-Colts thread

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                          The only point I can fathom for striking players is to argue to a judge that the use of replacement referees represent a drastic change in the work environment and worker safety that could not have been anticipated at the time that the agreement was signed.

                          I don't think that would fly, since when the agreement was signed, the timeline for expiration of the last agreement with the officials was known to both parties.

                          Since the language is pretty specific, I don't see much wiggle room. A judge could declare striking players in violation of the CBA and grant the league major damages, such as a bigger cut of TV revenue.

                          A player's strike seems unworkable.

                          The fans have the only power to use. We are addicted to the product though.
                          I think at this point it is going to take an injury to a big time player, on a play that should have been prevented. I am thinking a head injury to a starting QB who is sliding. Or it's going to take a massive fight, both of which, based on what the refs have been missing pretty consistently (late hits or away from the play hits on QBs and receivers) seem kind of likely. It is clear this is not going to motivate Goodell otherwise we would already be seeing it in the news. First game of this week is on Thursday, which IMO already suggests that week 4 is going to be another week of this mess.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Non-Colts thread

                            so the NFL needs its Ron Artest and its Malice at the Palace?

                            :bricks:
                            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


                            • Re: Non-Colts thread

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              so the NFL needs its Ron Artest and its Malice at the Palace?

                              :bricks:
                              I mean doesn't it unfortunately seem like it is the path we are heading down? I don't see it ending with fans, but two teams brawling doesn't seem far fetched. How many times a game are we seeing people shoving, wrestling, punching? 15+? It sure seems like it and nothing ever gets called. They let them go all the way up until the ball is spotted. It is crazy.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                                Dakich told me I am oversimplifying it by explaining that once he removed one hand from the ball, he relinquished possession. That makes it so that when he throws his arm back in there that it's no longer simultaneous.

                                Since when is using the rules oversimplifying?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X