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

2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

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

  • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

    To come up with a hoax like that, that far in advance and do all the background stuff like tweets back and forth etc, to get sympathy in a Heisman race that you might never be in is like the Lex Luther of evil genius.

    And also the friendship between Te'o and Lennay was 2yrs old before they became a "couple." I think being friends, and then falling "in-love" after you really get to know someone, or think you do, when you haven't met them is a lot more plausible than having an online dating relationship for 3yrs.

    Phsyical interaction just isn't important for some people. Usually not high profile athletes.
    Last edited by Since86; 01-22-2013, 11:40 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

      This is when I thought it was too complex for Te'o to be involved...

      http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/17/manti-...to-girlfriend/

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        To come up with a hoax like that, that far in advance and do all the background stuff like tweets back and forth etc, to get sympathy in a Heisman race that you might never be in is like the Lex Luther of evil genius.
        That's the basically the same sort logic that Bill shot down down when he said:

        Originally posted by BillS
        Whatever the supporting facts may be, discounting a possibility because someone would have to "be pretty stupid" not to catch on is NOT a valid argument.
        Both sides are going to use that sort of logic to prove their point. Those who believe Te'o was in on it are going to say that no one could possibly be dumb enough to be duped for that long. Those who believe that Te'o was hoaxed are going to say that Te'o would have to be unbelievably diabolical to come up with a scheme like that.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

          But there's a lot more examples of people being "that stupid" than there is of people manufacturing a three year relationship on flimsy details that have no way of standing up to scrutinization.

          It's much more plausible that he's just that "stupid" rather than planning the whole thing.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            But there's a lot more examples of people being "that stupid" than there is of people manufacturing a three year relationship on flimsy details that have no way of standing up to scrutinization.

            It's much more plausible that he's just that "stupid" rather than planning the whole thing.
            We already know that someone manufactured it. Why should Te'o manufacturing it be any more hard to believe than someone else manufacturing it, particularly when Te'o easily had the most to gain here? We already know that Te'o is at the very least guilty of lying about it to enhance his image.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              We already know that someone manufactured it. Why should Te'o manufacturing it be any more hard to believe than someone else manufacturing it, particularly when Te'o easily had the most to gain here? We already know that Te'o is at the very least guilty of lying about it to enhance his image.
              Or because he was embarassed and did not want to admit he had been made to look a fool....

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                Or because he was embarassed and did not want to admit he had been made to look a fool....
                Maybe. It's certainly possible. But I think those who want to believe Te'o at the very least have to admit that a lot of bizarre things would have to be true for Te'o to have honestly been duped for so long. I just don't think that people should shoot down the theory that Te'o was involved because if "implausibility" when the theory of him being duped is also pretty implausible. It's just an extremely strange story anyway you slice it.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                  Catfishing isn't some new phenomena that just started. It's been around awhile, and continue to be around, because people fall for it. I don't consider being duped implausible at all.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                    I'm also now leaning toward the "Te'o was being duped" theory, with the caveat that he found it an embarrassing relationship to explain, and so he very freely embellished a great many details. Embellishments that he continued to make even after he knew it was a hoax, thus making his behavior worthy of just criticism.
                    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: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Catfishing isn't some new phenomena that just started. It's been around awhile, and continue to be around, because people fall for it. I don't consider being duped implausible at all.
                      I don't consider initially being duped implausible, but I do feel that being duped for as long as he was falls into implausible territory.

                      1. Notre Dame played at Stanford on November 26, 2011. Did it occur to him to try to finally meet this girl at Stanford, the school which she attended? Did he try to meet with her that weekend?

                      2. Did it ever occur to him to look online for her obituary after she died? That's probably one of the first things most people would do if someone they cared about died. Wouldn't he be curious about this girl and what she did in her life? Obituaries are published for a reason - people want to read them when loved ones die. Most people would google her name and immediately get suspicious when no obituary came up.

                      3. Why make absolutely no effort to try and attend the funeral of this woman you allegedly love?

                      4. Why not try to visit her in the hospital after the car accident?

                      5. Are there phone records that will show that he was on the phone multiple nights to the same number?

                      6. The fake girlfriend allegedly dies the day after his grandmother. So are we supposed to believe that these alleged catfishers decided to kick it up a notch and move into viciously evil territory by playing on his emotions after losing his grandmother? That's far beyond normal "catfishing". Is it not natural to think that the fake girlfriend dying a day after the grandmother was awfully "convenient" for the emotional story the media ran with throughout the season? Everyone loses a grandparent at some point, but very few people lose a girlfriend the day after their grandmother. Te'o had the most to gain from the hoax.

                      7. Why talk about how cancer killed your girlfriend and grandmother on December 8 when you were allegedly told on December 6 that the girlfriend didn't exist? Clearly at that point, Te'o was completely full of crap. The question is how big of a liar is he? His excuse is that he "didn't want to believe it", or whatever he said in that Schapp interview. Every excuse of his is akin to "my dog ate it". Couldn't go to the funeral because of school, a family re-union prevented meeting her, etc etc etc.

                      8. Why fixate about an online girlfriend who you've never met when you are a superstar college athlete who could have your pick of real women? Clearly he had the ability to pick up a nice looking girl, as that one pic of his real life gf shows.

                      Those are eight big questions that immediately popped into my head. I find it almost implausible that all of them can be explained away by an honest answer. If he was really duped on every single one of those questions, then he really is a complete moron. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I do think it's very implausible.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-22-2013, 03:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                        Deadspin archieved "Lennay's" tweets going back two+ years. On Nov 26, 2011 "she" was supposedly in New Zealand. (Said she left like Nov 21)
                        26-Nov-11
                        2:18 AM
                        lovalovaloveYOU
                        Seriously, I can't thank God enough! What a wonderful evening of worship with great people here in Aotearoa! I'm so glad I made it! #Blessed
                        http://deadspin.com/5977234/

                        (I had to look up Aotearoa. It's looks like it's the native name for NZ)
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aotearoa


                        I'm sure there were always those little excuses that were supicisious but plausible at the time.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Deadspin archieved "Lennay's" tweets going back two+ years. On Nov 26, 2011 "she" was supposedly in New Zealand. (Said she left like Nov 21)

                          http://deadspin.com/5977234/

                          (I had to look up Aotearoa. It's looks like it's the native name for NZ)
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aotearoa


                          I'm sure there were always those little excuses that were supicisious but plausible at the time.

                          Thanks, that checks one of my questions off. I have a feeling that some of the bigger ones will be a bit more difficult for him to explain though.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            I don't consider initially being duped implausible, but I do feel that being duped for as long as he was falls into implausible territory.

                            1. Notre Dame played at Stanford on November 26, 2011. Did it occur to him to try to finally meet this girl at Stanford, the school which she attended? Did he try to meet with her that weekend?
                            I agree with this, but as others have said "she" always had an excuse why she was not available. Perhaps it was just a good con.


                            2. Did it ever occur to him to look online for her obituary after she died? That's probably one of the first things most people would do if someone they cared about died. Wouldn't he be curious about this girl and what she did in her life? Obituaries are published for a reason - people want to read them when loved ones die. Most people would google her name and immediately get suspicious when no obituary came up.
                            My biggest question

                            3. Why make absolutely no effort to try and attend the funeral of this woman you allegedly love?
                            Supposedly "she" made him promise if anything ever happened he would not come to the funeral and play in her honor. My family in SB called me the day the grandma died, and I remember asking if he would fly home for the funeral, and they told me he was going to play then fly home that next weekend (ND bye week). Of course I was confused because I thought both funerals were in Hawaii.

                            To think, if I had just Googled this gal I may have broke this story before deadspin!

                            4. Why not try to visit her in the hospital after the car accident?
                            Another question I have, and one that confuses me as "she" was in the hospital while Teo was on summer break so it is not luck he was swamped with school

                            5. Are there phone records that will show that he was on the phone multiple nights to the same number?
                            I keep asking, and no one seems to know. Seems it would be easy enough for Teo to prove with phone records.

                            6. The fake girlfriend allegedly dies the day after his grandmother. So are we supposed to believe that these alleged catfishers decided to kick it up a notch and move into viciously evil territory by playing on his emotions after losing his grandmother? That's far beyond normal "catfishing". Is it not natural to think that the fake girlfriend dying a day after the grandmother was awfully "convenient" for the emotional story the media ran with throughout the season? Everyone loses a grandparent at some point, but very few people lose a girlfriend the day after their grandmother. Te'o had the most to gain from the hoax.
                            I believe the guy admits he did this. Lord knows why. Maybe he always planned on bringing her back from the dead. Maybe it was just a cruel joke gone too far (by a lot, like a hell of a lot). Again, sick.

                            7. Why talk about how cancer killed your girlfriend and grandmother on December 8 when you were allegedly told on December 6 that the girlfriend didn't exist? Clearly at that point, Te'o was completely full of crap. The question is how big of a liar is he? His excuse is that he "didn't want to believe it", or whatever he said in that Schapp interview. Every excuse of his is akin to "my dog ate it". Couldn't go to the funeral because of school, a family re-union prevented meeting her, etc etc etc.
                            He did not know this on December 6. Dec 6 "she" called to say she had faked her death to avoid drug dealers. Crazy, I know, but I could see where if he got sucked in this far..........
                            8. Why fixate about an online girlfriend who you've never met when you are a superstar college athlete who could have your pick of real women? Clearly he had the ability to pick up a nice looking girl, as that one pic of his real life gf shows.
                            Different strokes for different folks. I would be curious if he dated at all before the one that keep circulating, or if that was his only one (or one of few)

                            Those are eight big questions that immediately popped into my head. I find it almost implausible that all of them can be explained away by an honest answer. If he was really duped on every single one of those questions, then he really is a complete moron. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I do think it's very implausible.
                            I am about a die hard as a ND fan as I think you will find (my family thinks I am crazy, my wife thinks I am mental, but Saturdays are Notre Dame Saturdays in my household) and I wanted to believe Teo. But as I have said in this very thread, at the worst he made it up (sick!) and at best he is a really really really stupid person. No way to deny it. He clearly fell hook, line, and sinker

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                              Very fair responses, VA.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                                phone records:

                                http://espn.go.com/college-football/...t-tv-interview

                                A source close to Te'o gave ESPN's Jeremy Schaap documents that the source says are Te'o's AT&T phone records from May 11 to Sept. 12. Their veracity could not be independently confirmed, but the source insisted they are genuine.


                                The records show that in that four-month span -- when Te'o has said he believed Lennay Kekua to be in a Los Angeles hospital, recovering from an accident and being treated for cancer -- Te'o made and received more than 1,000 calls totaling more than 500 hours in length from the same number in the 661 area code. The 661 area code covers Lancaster, which is part of Los Angeles County. The source told Schaap that Te'o believed the 661 phone number in question was Kekua's.

                                Of these calls, 110 were more than 60 minutes in length, including several that were several hundred minutes long. In an ESPN interview last Friday, and in interviews with both ESPN and Sports Illustrated last fall, Te'o said he was on the phone "every single night" with a person he believed to be Kekua, often for long stretches late at night.

                                On Friday, he said to Schaap, "I'd be on the phone. And she had complications from the accident and, she said the only thing that could help her sleep was if I was on the phone. So I would be on the phone, and I'd have the phone on the whole night."

                                From the records, however, it does not appear that Te'o was on the phone every single night for the entire night. But the volume of calls and their duration is sizable.
                                1,000 calls for 500 hours??

                                That is some colossal determination to pull off a prank...
                                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