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

    Yikes

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...rlfriend-angle


    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

      Not without precedence at ND

      http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...rman-manti-teo
      . . . There's a great moment in Ray Robinson's Rockne of Notre Dame when he describes Rockne taking his team down to play Georgia Tech in the 1920s. This was the heart of Ku Klux Klan country — and the Klan, of course, hated Catholics as much as they hated blacks and Jews. In the locker room before the game, Rockne gave his usual passionate speech about pride and dedication, then suddenly lowered his voice. Robinson writes:

      Arriving at this climax, Rockne slowly removed a crumpled telegraph from his pocket. In silence he stared at the words on the missive. Then he began to read aloud: "PLEASE WIN THIS GAME FOR MY DADDY. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HIM."
      "It's from Billy," Rockne said, referring to his beloved 6-year-old son, the team's unofficial mascot. "He's very ill and is in the hospital." When Rockne finished, some of the players, Robinson writes, "began to cry, while others jumped up from their perches and swore they would annihilate Tech just for Billy. Indeed, that's exactly what they proceeded to do."

      Billy was not the girlfriend of the quarterback. He did not mortally injure himself taking drugs or driving too fast. He was narrowly and specifically in the second, "inspirational outsider" category.

      So what is so fantastic about the Manti Te'o story? It is all three narratives, all in one. It's Love Story meets Icarus meets inspirational outsider. It wasn't enough that Manti's love affair be doomed, that his girlfriend had leukemia, and that he drew from her death the inspiration to go out and get 12 tackles in the crucial defeat of Michigan State. She also had to be severely injured in a car accident. It's a combo platter! It's so over-the-top I am in awe. You couldn't be more right that this is an "aggressively modern" scandal. Why would anyone in the 21st century settle for just one played-out story line?

      What's not modern, though, is the made-up part. "Billy," Knute Rockne's son? Totally healthy back home in South Bend . . .

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

        I was doing some digging last night on twitter, I can't post it from this computer, but there was a guy and a girl joking about Lennay back in late Nov/early Dec. A lot of thought has been they've had something to do with it. Teh guy, who's name is @jayRahz if anyone wants to look some of the other tweets, said that he and the girl (ceeweezy858 or something) we're hoaxed and busted the guy behing Lennay Kekau back in 2008. They were joking about it, because they knew it was fake. Another tweet said that they didn't know anything about it, until they saw the story of her dying and her name attached and recognized the name.

        The more and more comes out, it looks like Te'o got duped, didn't know how to get out of the situation, so he just kept it up until it all came out. Should have just came out and admitted to it.
        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
          I was doing some digging last night on twitter, I can't post it from this computer, but there was a guy and a girl joking about Lennay back in late Nov/early Dec. A lot of thought has been they've had something to do with it. Teh guy, who's name is @jayRahz if anyone wants to look some of the other tweets, said that he and the girl (ceeweezy858 or something) we're hoaxed and busted the guy behing Lennay Kekau back in 2008. They were joking about it, because they knew it was fake. Another tweet said that they didn't know anything about it, until they saw the story of her dying and her name attached and recognized the name.

          The more and more comes out, it looks like Te'o got duped, didn't know how to get out of the situation, so he just kept it up until it all came out. Should have just came out and admitted to it.
          I don't think anything substantial has come out yet that shows Te'o was duped. By Notre Dame's own admission, Te'o is a liar. I don't think they realized they were admitting that when they made their statement, but they (unintentionally probably) admitted he was a liar. They said he found out about the hoax in Orlando (which took place on Dec. 6), yet we have quotes from him on Dec. 8 talking about losing his GF. So how far do his lies extend?

          When is Te'o going to address any of this? I get that it's embarrassing, but the longer he waits, the more guilty it makes him look. Maybe it will eventually be proven that he was in fact duped, but I haven't yet seen anything substantial that shows he was duped. Most of the circumstantial evidence implies he was in on it, IMHO. So many things would have to be true for him to have honestly been duped. Seems hard to believe to me. OTOH, him being in on it is a pretty simple explanation and makes everything very believable.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

            If Lennay Kekau has been around since atleast 2008, a year before Te'o "met" her, I have a hard time believing that Te'o had any part of creating the situation. Combine that with other NFL players saying they phsiycally met a girl pretending to be her. The TMZ story is pretty sick. Having a lady meet your "sister" and then killing her off a month later.


            I acknowledged he lied. I'm not trying to absolve him of that. It's a lot more understandable seeing a guy in a bad situation not knowing exactly what to do, rather than seeing a guy create the situation for personal gain. Both are crappy situations, but one is a lot better than the other.
            Last edited by Since86; 01-18-2013, 10:55 AM.
            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
              If Lennay Kekau has been around since atleast 2008, a year before Te'o "met" her, I have a hard time believing that Te'o had any part of creating the situation. Combine that with other NFL players saying they phsiycally met a girl pretending to be her. The TMZ story is pretty sick. Having a lady meet your "sister" and then killing her off a month later.


              I acknowledged he lied. I'm not trying to absolve him of that. It's a lot more understandable seeing a guy in a bad situation not knowing exactly what to do, rather than seeing a guy create the situation for personal gain. Both are crappy situations, but one is a lot better than the other.
              If she has been around since 08, then I'd certainly agree with you. I just think we'll need something more than some random guy's twitter. Lots of people say lots of things on twitter for attention.

              The first thing he needs to do, especially if innocent, is get out in front of this. The longer he waits, the worse he looks.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                Yeah seriously, why so quiet Manti? That prepared statement must be taking a lot of editing for someone with nothing to hide. You're already embarrassed why not get this over with?


                Comment


                • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  Yeah seriously, why so quiet Manti? That prepared statement must be taking a lot of editing for someone with nothing to hide. You're already embarrassed why not get this over with?
                  And while the media will eventually find something else to talk about, NFL teams certainly won't forget about it. He's going to be grilled relentlessly multiple times by teams who are probably good at detecting BS. He's going to have to face the music sooner or later.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                    Breaking news on ESPN

                    A man, in 2008, was scammed by this same guy from USC.

                    The man will not comment, but his cousins are speaking now. One of them (a young girl) says she tried to tweet Matain and tell him, and he blocked her

                    The USC kid told the girl that he hoaxed Mantain, and it was a game for him

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                      Just really bizarre, I'm beginning to think manti was definitely hoaxed at some point, but he found out then and made a decision to keep it quiet. My biggest question right now is when did Manti actually figure out? When did he start hanging with Tuiasosopo did it start as a hoax on Manti and then they both decided they could maybe profit from it? This is going to make a great book.


                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                        All Te'o mailbag from Bill Simmons today http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ll-teo-mailbag


                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          All Te'o mailbag from Bill Simmons today http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...ll-teo-mailbag
                          The Belichick speculation is definitely believable.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                            I cant post from my phone, but tmz has pictures with a girl. I cant see the timeline of when they started dating.

                            I also saw Teo said he got a call Dec 6. He never said he figured out it was a Hoax the

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                              Photo of the girl used for the Lennay Kekua persona:

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                                tmz.com

                                11:49 AM PT -- New photos have surfaced showing Manti and Alexandra sitting on Santa's lap together sometime around Christmas.

                                Alex also posted a photo on November 16, in which she thanked Manti for giving her a couple of leis, which she hung in her car.

                                The dates are consistent with the story Manti is telling friends.




                                Manti Te'o quietly began dating an actual living, breathing female human being ... shortly after he learned "Lennay Kekua" had died from cancer ... and the rebound chick is HOT ... TMZ has learned.

                                Sources close to Manti tell us ... the Notre Dame star met Alexandra del Pilar the weekend of November 10 -- when Notre Dame played Boston College.

                                Alexandra, 21, is a student at St. Mary's College in Indiana -- which is close to Notre Dame.

                                We're told Alexandra and Manti dated for nearly 2 months, but broke up recently.

                                There are rumors swirling that Manti created a fictitious GF to take the pressure off him from teammates and others who felt he should be dating, but his relationship with a real woman calls those rumors into doubt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X