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

    I posted it as a joke yesterday, but I am more and more serious.

    There is money to be made on a Manti Teo twitter story movie.

    Every time I think it cant get weirder, it does.

    First she is dead. Then she is dead. Then she is running from drug dealers.

    ____________

    On a more serious note, and I want to believe Manti, but I have one HUGE problem. I can get past looking at online obituaries, I can get past not seeing her ever (on FT or SKYPE), but I CANNOT understand why you never visit your sick GF. I mean, if you care about her why the hell not visit her. And some if the time she was in the hospital he was on summer break.

    That along makes me question that maybe he knew it was a scam before he is letting on.

    That, or he is one of the dumbest and heartless people ever. I always google family members when they pass (to post links on facebook and via email) but I sure as hell would hope I would visit a sick GF, even if we only met on the internet.
    Last edited by vapacersfan; 01-19-2013, 07:24 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      What's the obvious tell?
      If they were actual tweets or direct messages the end of the story would be at the top and the start would be at the bottom, but right now it is backwards. Tweets that start sentences come before those that end them as you read down when it should be the other way around.


      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
        There is a 140 character limit on direct messages. One of those is way longer than 140.
        This too


        Comment


        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

          Ok, yes folks, online relationships are more and more common.

          However, online relationships for 3 years where you never actually see someone's face are not.


          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Ok, yes folks, online relationships are more and more common.

            However, online relationships for 3 years where you never actually see someone's face are not.
            Like Since, my girlfriend has dragged me into watching Catfish (but I'll admit I started to at least be kind of interested in the outcomes) and I would say it's not uncommon for a long relationship based only online.

            Think about it, you meet online, you believe it's love, you just stop after a year because you haven't met? I mean, you've gone this far. I think it's crazy that someone could get back with a cheater, but people do it. Why wouldn't you still be in love with someone that is saying maybe they're just afraid to meet you? It's not a betrayal. If you can fall in love with someone you haven't met, it's not out of the question that you could let it drag on for years.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Ok, yes folks, online relationships are more and more common.

              However, online relationships for 3 years where you never actually see someone's face are not.
              His justification for this was weird.

              It was on and off, and we did not meet as early as media are saying



              Also, I have only received on DM (I am not a huge fan of twitter) but I swear mine was really, really, really long.

              From yahoo answers, and I know this is far form official "I believe if it longer than 140 characters, some apps will use twitlonger to make the messages longer. Officially it is 140 characters."

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                From twitter:

                note about DM fails: Your service provider may split SMS messages greater than 160 characters into multiple messages. In this case, the second message will post as a normal Tweet because it doesn't begin with d username, as the first message did. Please be careful to ensure that your messages are under 160 characters, including the d command and username.

                https://support.twitter.com/articles...-messages-dms#

                Comment


                • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                  Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                  Like Since, my girlfriend has dragged me into watching Catfish (but I'll admit I started to at least be kind of interested in the outcomes) and I would say it's not uncommon for a long relationship based only online.

                  Think about it, you meet online, you believe it's love, you just stop after a year because you haven't met? I mean, you've gone this far. I think it's crazy that someone could get back with a cheater, but people do it. Why wouldn't you still be in love with someone that is saying maybe they're just afraid to meet you? It's not a betrayal. If you can fall in love with someone you haven't met, it's not out of the question that you could let it drag on for years.
                  I know this is me judging because I was in college and did stupid **** all the time, but to me if you do that you are just not very smart. You have to ignore a LOT of red flags

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                    http://www.knoe.com/story/20632285/r...e-and-teo-case

                    CARSON, Calif. (AP) - When Notre Dame football star Manti Te'o ordered two dozen white roses delivered to 21503 Water Street, he says he thought they were headed to the home of his dead girlfriend, Lennay Kekua. In fact, the man implicated as the ringleader of a false-identity hoax and many of his relatives have lived in the single-story, stucco bungalow, according to publicly available records and interviews with neighbors.

                    Water Street, in a working-class community 13 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, adds another element to the Te'o-Lennay Kekua hoax: the house six doors down, at 21403 Water, belongs to a family named Kekua - an uncommon Hawaiian name but the same one as the fictitious girlfriend at the center of the ruse.

                    Two members of the real Kekua family told The Associated Press they had never heard of a "Lennay Kekua."


                    The Kekua fabrication came to light Wednesday, when Deadspin.com revealed that the story of Te'o's girlfriend dying from leukemia last September was a fake - because Lennay Kekua never existed.


                    Deadspin suggested Ronaiah Tuiasosopo was the person responsible for carrying out the hoax. Te'o said Friday he had been contacted by the 22-year-old Tuiasosopo, and that the man had admitted to masterminding the scam. Members of the Kekua family and others in the neighborhood told the AP on Saturday that Ronaiah Tuiasosopo had lived at 21503 Water St. and has visited it since moving out about a year ago.


                    The AP reviewed a compilation of documents about the property from a variety of sources, such as real estate and bankruptcy records.


                    In specifying where he had sent the roses, Te'o said Friday in an interview with ESPN that he still didn't know who lives at 21503 Water Street or of any possible connection between the address and the hoax.


                    But he did say he knew the residents had accepted delivery of the bouquet. "They sent me a picture of the roses, of them getting it," he said. And they also sent a photo of the flowers that Te'o's parents had delivered "as proof" that their tribute to the nonexistent girlfriend had been received.


                    Publicly available records indicate that Tuiasosopo used to live at 21503 Water Street. One neighbor said Saturday that Ronaiah had lived in the house for several years, until about a year ago. Another neighbor said that in her 27 years living on the block there had always been a Tuiasosopo living in 21503, including Ronaiah, his father and an uncle, Navy.


                    Multiple public records indicate that Navy, who played football for Utah State and the Los Angeles Rams, was a brother of former USC football player Titus Tuiasosopo, Ronaiah's father. A neighbor said Navy had lived at 21503 until his death in 2011.


                    A Cadillac still registered to Navy Tuiasosopo was parked in the driveway of Titus Tuiasosopo's home in Palmdale, about 90 miles north of Carson, on Saturday. Titus is the pastor of Oasis Christian Church of the Antelope Valley in Lancaster, Calif., and Ronaiah is active in the church band, and most recently has been living with his father.


                    In a joint interview Saturday, Barbara Kekua, 78, said she has lived at 21403 Water Street since it was built about 50 years ago. Her daughter, Kris Kekua, 45, grew up there, and moved back two years ago, across the street to 21406 Water, to be near her mother.


                    The two Kekua women said they do not know why their name was chosen for the scheme.


                    Kris recalled that when the story of Lennay Kekua's supposed death made national sports headlines last fall, friends asked if she was related. "I'm like, 'I don't know who that is,'" she said.


                    Kris said she had grown up with Titus and Navy on the block.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                      http://espn.go.com/college-football/...tion-was-prank

                      Facebook messages from Teo to a friend where he doubts if this is a hoax. The messages are dated 2010

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                        SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- A day after Manti Te'o spoke publicly for the first time since it was revealed the story of whom he considered his dead girlfriend was a hoax, a friend of the former Notre Dame linebacker came to his defense, recalling a scene from this past spring that appears to validate the purported April 28 car accident in which Te'o was told "Lennay Kekua" was involved.

                        John Pepelnjak, a junior political science and computer applications major at Notre Dame, told ESPN.com that he was playing video games with Te'o one night this past spring in Te'o's Dillon Hall dorm room when Te'o received an anticipated phone call from multiple males that Te'o believed to be the brothers of Kekua.


                        "As a close friend of Manti's, I feel obliged to tell a story about a situation that I had witnessed in which his feelings for Lennay were made very real," Pepelnjak said in a statement. "Back in late April or early May, I want to say within the first couple days following the supposed car crash, I can testify with 100 percent certainty that he spoke on the phone with Lennay's 'brothers' and that he did NOT create this hoax. Manti and I were playing video games in his room, and he received a phone call that he had been anxiously awaiting. Manti desperately wanted to understand what had happened and what kind of condition she was in."

                        http://espn.go.com/college-football/...-call-april-28

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                          ^Somebody is getting some 50-yardline seats for their senior year!

                          and that somebody is John Pepelnjak.




                          http://espn.go.com/college-football/...tion-was-prank

                          Facebook messages from Teo to a friend where he doubts if this is a hoax. The messages are dated 2010
                          lol @ she claims to be a Victoria's secret model. If that is not a clue for "I'm some dude pretending to be a hot babe online" I don't know what is.
                          Last edited by dal9; 01-19-2013, 10:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                            I think it's pretty simple. It's a hoax, he's a victim, but he lied after finding out about the hoax to keep from looking like a dumbass.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                              The big question I have is WHEN did he find out.

                              2010? 2011? 2012?

                              Not that is matters. His name is ****. Reminds me of the Lou Holtz poem from back in the day. I cant find it but it is similar to this:

                              Guard Your Name



                              You got it from your father,
                              it was all he had to give
                              So it’s yours to use and cherish,
                              for as long as you may live.


                              If you lose the watch he gave you,
                              it can always be replaced.
                              But a black mark on your name, son,
                              can never be erased.


                              It was clean the day you took it,
                              and a worthy name to bear.
                              When he got it from his father,
                              there was no dishonor there.


                              So make sure you guard it wisely,
                              after all is said and done.
                              You’ll be glad the name is spotless,
                              when you give it to your son.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                                He also says that she asked him for his bank acct #. That is interesting as it does now provide the "what is in it for the hoaxer" explanation.
                                Ah, now that makes more sense. I just couldn't see this massive hoax without there being some sort of end game. That's a lot of effort to put in for nothing but the sadistic lulz.

                                And, yeah, I think deadspin may come to regret printing the 80% bit. I know it was technically credited to someone else, but they chose to include it.
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X