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

Ref'ing thread

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

  • #46
    Re: Ref'ing thread

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    No one is perfect. Even the best make mistakes. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have each thrown plenty of interceptions over the course of their long careers, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been superior talents to virtually everyone else that played in their era. That's the same case with the regular officials. Sure they would screw up, but in no way were they as incompetent as these replacement officials. Just like Peyton throwing a pick doesn't mean that he's all of the sudden Rex Grossman.

    The NFL is the most superior brand of football in the entire world. The regular officials had spent years reffing and watching this game. There is no way that some guys who reffed in a bunch of joke leagues could come in and ref as well as the guys who had been doing this for years. They are completely incompetent compared to the real refs.
    And how god awful would it be to listen to people react to an INT by Cutler and then try to argue that if Manning or Brady were the QB that the INT wouldn't have happened?

    That's my point. Some mistakes should be expected, because it comes with the territory. When mistakes do happen, they are overblown and talked about indepth to the point that it becomes the belief that these problems wouldn't be around with regular officials. These types of criticisms happen with regular officials, so it merely is a part of the game. These complaints aren't any new complaints. They happen with replacement officials and they happen with regular officials.

    When these mistakes do happen, the officials should get a little bit of slack instead of a noose.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Ref'ing thread

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      If this continues, the season as a whole deserves an asterisk, as a season that was not fairly decided on the field of play.
      As a Colts fan that has watched the Pats get by with illegal contact after 5yds, to the point where they're grabbing and holding jerseys so the receiver can't get seperation, I think that officials with crappy judgement unfair decide outcomes of games. They don't officiate the game, by the rules, and it creates an unfair advantage for the defense.

      Why should those games not get asterisks? We're trying to pick and choose which mistakes are okay and which mistakes are unfair, instead of just labeling them both mistakes and moving forward.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Ref'ing thread

        The Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl, to this unbiased viewer who was pulling for the underdog Seahawks, consisted of a whole assortment of close calls that seemingly all favored the Steelers and made you think "Gee, I want to see that replay"

        Then each and every time I would see the replay and I would think "I guess they got it right, or... wow, you know, I can't really tell"

        In the end I thought the Steelers were extremely fortunate, not to benefit from obviously bad officiating, but from having so many calls in their favor that could have gone the other way, since the video evidence would not have supported an overturn in either direction (if it were in fact reviewable).

        Just my 2 cents.
        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


        • #49
          Re: Ref'ing thread

          I asked Jay's_Wife@Section222 last night, after watching the Steelers-Raiders then Ravens-Patriots if the league might toss out the records with these replacement refs and let everyone start over 0-0?

          Of course they won't, they used replacement players during that season back in the '80's to determine who made the playoffs.

          But this season has absolutely no feel to it right now, in part because of the officiating.

          SF getting their butts whipped by Minnesota while Detroit struggles with Tennessee? I know "any given Sunday" but there's just a bunch of weird stuff going on this season, including a lot of teams already battling the injury bug. Ben gets a low hit - below his knee that goes uncalled and then there was the huge full-speed collision in the endzone that was uncalled. They're bad for everybody, no one team can really claim to be the victim, but they're just plain bad.

          Maybe the Ravens could claim to be victims, over weeks #2 and #3, but then the last two minutes of last night's push-off errrrr... I mean game... happened. So I think it balanced out.
          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


          • #50
            Re: Ref'ing thread

            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
            Going to? Does Darius Heyward-Bey not count?
            I don't know the officials could have done anything to prevent that. Carson was brilliant in the second half but on that play - throwing that pass behind him really put him in harms way. If Carson puts it where he catches it in stride there probably isn't such a violent football collision.

            Should a flag have been thrown? Probably. But it was also a football play with unfortunate consequences. Not sure the officiating "caused" that injury. You had three guys going full speed to a pass that was a little bit off its intended target. As Fouts said, "That's a risk we all signed up for."
            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


            • #51
              Re: Ref'ing thread

              Polian through the competition committee asked the league to make defensive contact a league-wide point of emphasis, so that every single crew called it closely.

              Until that point, each crew "called their own strike zone" so to speak. Unfair or not, in a game the same call was consistent. That is the difference.

              With regular, competent refs, teams still knew things like "this crew calls it tight on offensive holding" or "this crew will allow incidental contact" and yes they game-plan accordingly. As long as during the game the calls are consistent, the players and coaches never complain.
              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


              • #52
                Re: Ref'ing thread

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                As long as during the game the calls are consistent, the players and coaches never complain.
                Okay...
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Ref'ing thread

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  Polian through the competition committee asked the league to make defensive contact a league-wide point of emphasis, so that every single crew called it closely.
                  I can't wait until that emphasis is reversed.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Ref'ing thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Okay...
                    Guys like Bill Polian and Jim Irsay may complain, because they are inherently drunk whiny be-atches who consider themselves and all in their kingdom to be forever blameless of anything at any time, but players and coaches rarely if ever go there.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: Ref'ing thread

                      Yep, criticizing officials is a symptom of Colts Land. You got your point across on that one.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Ref'ing thread

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

                        Should a flag have been thrown? Probably.
                        probably?! c'mon.
                        that was textbook launching into a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Ref'ing thread

                          At this point I want the players, the coaches, or both to actually go out on strike until the referee dispute is settled.

                          It won't happen, but Goodell needs some sort of crisis to drive him settle this, because us addicted fans obviously will not stop watching enough to make a difference.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Ref'ing thread

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            At this point I want the players, the coaches, or both to actually go out on strike until the referee dispute is settled.

                            It won't happen, but Goodell needs some sort of crisis to drive him settle this, because us addicted fans obviously will not stop watching enough to make a difference.
                            the players' CBA bans "sympathy strikes," so that is out. (Not sure about the coaches--that would be kind of fun if the coaches went on strike only.)

                            I'm not sure how long all the fans are going to keep watching--now they are watching for the car crash quality of these refs, but when does the incompetence and the delays just get old?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Ref'ing thread

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              I don't know the officials could have done anything to prevent that. Carson was brilliant in the second half but on that play - throwing that pass behind him really put him in harms way. If Carson puts it where he catches it in stride there probably isn't such a violent football collision.

                              Should a flag have been thrown? Probably. But it was also a football play with unfortunate consequences. Not sure the officiating "caused" that injury. You had three guys going full speed to a pass that was a little bit off its intended target. As Fouts said, "That's a risk we all signed up for."
                              in the moment, no the officials couldn't have done a thing to prevent it. but what has gone on this season, they absolutely could have. Defensive players are playing very reckless this year. I am seeing more helmet to helmet hits than ever before. And this is because the replacement officials just don't call them. Just like TJ was saying with the late hits on QBs.

                              Should a flag have been thrown? Absolutely! I don't know how you can say probably. The defender lead with his helmet, was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless receiver. That is a flag every time. And we saw exactly why. Cause DHB was knocked out before he hit the ground. Mundy wasn't going to the pass. He was going for the big hit. And sloppy at that, aka leading with your helmet.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Ref'ing thread

                                There is a difference between these replacement refs and the regular refs. Yeah the regular refs you would have maybe one terribly reffed game a week, with these replacement refs you have half the games terribly reffed, and the other half poorly reffed. These refs don't just occasionally make one or two big mistakes every few games, they are making one of two big mistakes every half. Yeah there are those who complain about the regular refs when the regular refs do a terrible job, but they are usually very isolated to a specific game or a specific call for a specific fan base. It isn't specific isolated events anymore, this is a general across the board terrible.

                                Yes, when there are blown calls with the regular refs it does get overblown by the fans usually, especially in the moment. Even with the overblown reaction it is, like I already said, very isolated to a specific ref or play. The complaining that is going on now is on a whole different level. It is a general complaint about all refs, in all games, on all plays, not specific refs, in specific games, on specific plays.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X