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

    Funny that the NFL put the part about missing the pass interference call first in the statement.

    Like sticking a daisy on a turd, thinking the fans might not notice.
    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

      joke time....

      Why is Wilson the best QB in the NFL?
      While any QB can win a game for his team with a TD pass, only Wilson can win a game for his team with an INT.







      What do the replacement refs have in common with Billy Graham?
      They both have the ability to make thousands stand in unison and yell "Je sus Christ!".



      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-25-2012, 02:17 PM.
      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 dal9 View Post
        [head explodes]
        In the replays they showed during the game, which are similar to what the refs look at I believe.

        Comment


        • Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
          In the replays they showed during the game, which are similar to what the refs look at I believe.
          This is what can cause spontaneous cranial combustion:

          Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
          While it definitely looked like a pick in the replays I am not sure there was definite evidence.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • Re: Non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            His left foot only goes out after he has already made the catch and brought it to the ground, maintaining control, though. Once his butt hits the ground, the play is over and he has the ball in both hands.

            So, no that doesn't matter.
            No, that's not true. Ask Hines Ward. Still trying to find the video on the internet but I remember the play itself vividly - both feet down, in the end zone, play over, touchdown, then he rolled over out of bounds and the ball wobbled and they ruled he didn't have control all the way through the catch even though he broke plane, with possession, two feet down, etc.

            I still think the refs blew that call, but apparently they got it right and the rule for a touchdown has been changed because of a replay procedure, not an actual rule change.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • Re: Non-Colts thread

              I don't feel sorry for the Packers. They put themselves in that situation. They are better than what they showed in that game. Which is the sad part in this all. We should be discussing how awful their offensive line is and how good Seattle's defense is but instead we are talking about the refs and one particular play.

              I am not saying the refs made the right call. I am not saying that the call didn't impact this game because it did. However it didn't have to be that way...that play didn't have to matter. I think Seattle is a good team but I think Green Bay is much better. Had Green Bay played like they are capable of then this never happens. So as players take to Twitter and conduct interviews expressing their displeasure with the performance of these replacement officials they should first look in the mirror and express displeasure with their own performance on the field.

              Comment


              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                The Calvin Johnson touchdown that wasn't a touchdown last year illustrates that one Jay.

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_713897.html
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  The Calvin Johnson touchdown that wasn't a touchdown last year illustrates that one Jay.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_713897.html
                  I think most players and fans think of the traditional rule - that as soon as you've broken the plane - or gotten both feet down in the end zone - with ball the play is over.

                  Can you imagine how confused everyone would be if *this* play happened in a big MNF or Super Bowl game when Madden was butchering the rules. Nobody would know what the hell just happened, and they'd all have the same incorrect argument!

                  That play is nearly identical to the Hines Ward play against the Browns in 2009. That game was more famous for one other "controversial" call - the Steelers got a measurement around the 20 yard line, and from the midfield camera angle zoomed in super tight, it appeared they were an inch or two short of the first down. But the camera angle was at about a 45-degree angle to the chains being stretched on the field, not perpindicular, so the angle the tv viewers got was not the same as the referree's viewing angle. Referree signalled for first down, and confusion reigned in the broadcast booth. It wasn't Madden that time, so I'll give him a break. But a similar problem to what Madden had with announcing the controversial touchdown in SBXL. Same issue - the correct camera angle wasn't available and everything shown to the television viewers was inconclusive by definition.

                  I think it was the next season that the NFL added 12 permanently-fixed cameras - 2 along each goal line, 2 along each end line, 2 along each side line. These aren't really used by the broadcast crew but they're avaiable to the replay officials for goal line and sideline, endline calls.

                  After Sunday night's game, they may need to add four more, shooting straight into the sky under each side of the goal post. Of course, these replacement refs would probably stand on the camera and the replay of a controversial kick would just be a ground-level view of the backjudge's crotch!!
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by Young View Post
                    I don't feel sorry for the Packers. They put themselves in that situation. They are better than what they showed in that game. Which is the sad part in this all. We should be discussing how awful their offensive line is and how good Seattle's defense is but instead we are talking about the refs and one particular play.

                    I am not saying the refs made the right call. I am not saying that the call didn't impact this game because it did. However it didn't have to be that way...that play didn't have to matter. I think Seattle is a good team but I think Green Bay is much better. Had Green Bay played like they are capable of then this never happens. So as players take to Twitter and conduct interviews expressing their displeasure with the performance of these replacement officials they should first look in the mirror and express displeasure with their own performance on the field.
                    This isn't really fair to say. Winning games in the NFL is damn hard. Winning games against good teams is even more difficult. If Braylon Edwards doesn't drop the ball in the Arizona game, Seattle is 3-0. Also playing in Seattle is very difficult.

                    Green Bay set themselves up to win. A hail mary very rarely works. And last night it didn't work. Green Bay won that game. It doesn't matter if its by 1 or 100. Green Bay got straight up robbed of a win because of the officials.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Non-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      This is what can cause spontaneous cranial combustion:
                      Oh, ya that was stupid. I guess indisputable would've been better.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        No, that's not true. Ask Hines Ward. Still trying to find the video on the internet but I remember the play itself vividly - both feet down, in the end zone, play over, touchdown, then he rolled over out of bounds and the ball wobbled and they ruled he didn't have control all the way through the catch even though he broke plane, with possession, two feet down, etc.
                        Jefferson didn't let the ball wobble though. My point was just that his butt touching the ground is the same as two feet touching in bounds, so touching out of bounds with his left foot after that doesn't matter. It would be like a receiver not falling and never bobbling the ball, getting his left foot in, right foot in, then stepping his left foot out. The last step would not matter, as long as he permanently secured the ball before getting each foot in.
                        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
                          Jefferson didn't let the ball wobble though. My point was just that his butt touching the ground is the same as two feet touching in bounds, so touching out of bounds with his left foot after that doesn't matter. It would be like a receiver not falling and never bobbling the ball, getting his left foot in, right foot in, then stepping his left foot out. The last step would not matter, as long as he permanently secured the ball before getting each foot in.
                          Agreed. But its not cut-and-dry, both-feet-down-in-the-endzone-therefore-the-play-is-over, which many NFL fans might still think is true if they haven't seen the Calvin Johnson and Hines Ward plays.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • Re: Non-Colts thread

                            Goodell won't be shamed into ending this any quicker.

                            Us fans probably won't be able/willing to apply any financial pressure

                            Politicians likely won't (and shouldn't) intervene.

                            What is the hope? I guess the knowledge that at least a few owners care about the integrity of the game nearly as much as they do about not writing a big check. Maybe like with the players lockout, they can convince the rest of the owners to let some compromises get on the table, giving Goodell new orders.

                            I'm thinking of the Maras, the Rooneys, Robert Kraft. others?
                            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
                              Goodell won't be shamed into ending this any quicker.

                              Us fans probably won't be able/willing to apply any financial pressure

                              Politicians likely won't (and shouldn't) intervene.

                              What is the hope? I guess the knowledge that at least a few owners care about the integrity of the game nearly as much as they do about not writing a big check. Maybe like with the players lockout, they can convince the rest of the owners to let some compromises get on the table, giving Goodell new orders.

                              I'm thinking of the Maras, the Rooneys, Robert Kraft. others?

                              Which owners are hellbent on not giving the refs what they want? I would imagine that there is a small group leading the charge, as there was with the lockout (Jerry Jones, Richardson, Bowlen).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                                plus Mike Brown I'd guess.

                                Let's hope that the Cowboys are the next to get reamed on the last play of the game.

                                In other news, Jay Cutler has weighed in:


                                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

                                Working...
                                X