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

No Wonder Eli is off his game!

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

  • No Wonder Eli is off his game!

    By Jason McIntyre

    Who says this is the year of the tight end? While that seems to be the mantra among football heads because of the emergence of Antonio Gates in San Diego, Jason Witten in Dallas, and a couple other goons we've never heard of who happen to be effective in the red zone, let the truth be told:

    This year belongs to the quarterback.

    Tom Brady, Bridget Moynahan
    Most people will agree that Tom Brady is the man.
    Look around the league -- who's dating the A-list actresses (Tom Brady), Playboy Playmates (Jeff Garcia), and hanging out with barely-legal pop stars (Kliff Kingsbury, Eli Manning)?

    All quarterbacks.

    I mean, let's be realistic -- how important is red-zone efficiency when you're dating the most desirable female athlete on the planet (A.J. Feeley)? The trend of quarterbacks romancing starlets dates back to the 1960s with Broadway Joe Namath, and the tradition continues today, with signal-callers in 2004 burning up the gossip pages alongside celebrities.

    TOM BRADY, New England Patriots
    The current crown prince of football. Mothers wish their daughters could date him, guys want him as a wingman, and magazines eat up his cover-boy looks. He scores on the field (two Super rings) and off the field, he spends his free time with 34-year-old actress Bridget Moynahan.

    Perhaps most importantly (to a certain segment of the population) he has single-handedly brought the butt chin back. Brady's sudden rise to fame didn't begin at the University of Michigan, but in April of 2002, when hard-partying actress Tara Reid told a magazine that she asked her agent to set her up with the Super Bowl MVP.

    Apparently, uttering the phrase, "I'm going to Disneyland" is akin to, "Ladies, I have arrived." The Boston papers had a field day with Brady's nightlife antics after the Super Bowl -- he supposedly was dancing in the vicinity of songstress Mariah Carey, and then Britney Spears was in beantown for a concert, and made efforts to hang out him. By all accounts Reid was most persistent, and in September of 2002, he invited her to watch him carve up the Pittsburgh Steelers on Monday Night Football. The couple lasted all of a month.

    But Brady, 27, apparently found love late in 2003 with Moynahan, a leggy brunette whose movie credits include "Coyote Ugly" and "I Robot." Meryl Streep she ain't -- but she's much, MUCH, easier on the eyes.

    Is marriage in their future? Or if he wins another Super Bowl, does he upgrade from Moynahan -- is that even possible?

    Heather Mitts
    Thanks to Heather Mitts, A.J. Feeley's QB rating goes way up.
    A.J. FEELEY, Miami Dolphins
    On occasion, I'll look to the sky and ask, "Why is it blue?" Or maybe I'll look wistfully up at a basketball rim and ask, "Why wasn't I born to dunk?" In sports bars, I frequently hear, "How the [expletive] is A.J. Feeley dating Heather Mitts?

    In the event you're out of the loop on women's soccer here's the skinny on Mitts: As a member of the U.S. National soccer team and Page 2's Hottest Female Athlete of '04, Heather Mitts is one of the most desirable female athletes on the planet (apologies to golf's Next Big Thing, Natalie Gulbis). Mitts, she of the cover-girl looks and disarming smile, has attracted many a suitor, namely ex-boyfriend, Pat Burrell (overrated Philadelphia Phillies outfielder) and actor John Cusack. A newspaper report in June of 2001 alleges Cusack attempted to kiss her after taking her to dinner in Manhattan, but she responded with the pullback. Ouch.

    Feeley, 27, appears to have won her heart. Back in October of 2002, a newspaper spotted the couple cutting a rug on the dance floor at a club in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Three months later, things got quasi-serious, as they attended the Super Bowl together in January of 2003. By March, they were Philadelphia's cutest couple (meanwhile, Burrell privately stewed and had the worst season of his young career).

    Many predicted the relationship would go kaput when Feeley signed with Miami. Not quite. Word on the street is the 26-year-old Mitts has moved with him in Florida, and of all the quarterback couples, these two appear to have the greatest staying power.

    KYLE BOLLER, Baltimore Ravens
    After a rookie campaign that could only be considered a disappointment, Kyle Boller faded into the offseason last winter a forgotten man. By April, while the rest of the free world expressed concern over the status of Seth and Summer's relationship on "The O.C.," Boller was in New York City, cozying up to Tom Brady's ex-girlfriend, Tara Reid.

    It was all on the down low until the two showed up together at an Xbox party in the Hollywood Hills in May, where they partied with the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Nicky Hilton.

    Baltimore was positively giddy, with Tara sightings at the Power Plant, arm-in-arm with the city's hot new commodity (KB was quickly absolved of last year's putrid quarterback rating of 62.4 -- he was giving the city cred!).

    Kyle Boller, Tara Reid
    Kyle Boller was just another stop on Tara Reid's merry-go-round.
    But to show you how new Boller was to all of this, in June, he flew out to see his parents in California -- with Reid -- to celebrate his 23rd birthday. Come on Kyle, you know the parents can't meet her until at least the five-month mark. Anything earlier than that and it's the kiss of death. By July, Kyle and Tara were history.

    KLIFF KINGSBURY, New Orleans Saints
    Who? Generally, third-string quarterbacks who wear a baseball cap and tote a clipboard don't make lists like this. Then there's Kingsbury. College football afficionados may recall his days as a fringe Heisman contender in 2002; a quarterback who took 60 passes a game to accumulate half a dozen touchdowns. Kingsbury finished ninth.

    What the 25-year-old has going for him these days is his deep southern roots. He's one of those classic stories -- quarterback at a tiny high school, leads his team to State-Championship glory, rejected by all the big colleges, gets his chance to shine (at Texas Tech), proves all the doubters wrong, and gets all the girls (in this case, "hanging out" with Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson, though not at the same time).

    What's the connection? The south. Spears is from the sticks in Kentwood, Louisiana; Simpson from a suburb of Dallas, and Kingsbury from New Braunefels, Texas. He's undoubtedly got that Southern charm -- that's probably how he ended up on Britney's tour bus in 2002, and received gifts and handwritten notes from the singer; and it's probably how he ended up hanging out a New Orleans Hornets basketball game this season with Jessica Simpson (she's in Louisiana filming the "Dukes of Hazzard").

    Odds are good he's the type to break out the cowboy hat and guitar at the campfire and setting the southern ladies hearts aflutter.

    JEFF GARCIA, Cleveland Browns
    What is it about Cleveland Browns quarterbacks and centerfolds? Surely you recall the unjustly evicted Tim Couch and his much ballyhooed relationship with 1999 Playmate of the Year, Heather Kozar (and how his "friend" quarterback, Cade McNown, temporarily stole her from him). Couch and Kozar now live together in Wisconsin.

    The current Browns quarterback, Jeff "I'm not gay, Terrell Owens just says I am" Garcia, is dating another one of Playboy's finest, 22-year-old Carmella DeCesare (2004 Playmate of the Year). Must be something in that blue-collar Cleveland air. The two began dating this summer, and after Garcia and Owens had it out in the media, she came to the red-head's side, saying, "I can attest 100 percent that he is not gay."

    Brande Roderick, Owen Pochman
    Brande Roderick once had a thing for NFL kicker Owen Pochman.
    Later in the summer, she duked it out at a Cleveland club with Garcia's ex-girlfriend, someone named Kristen Hine. According to a police report, on Aug. 21, DeCesare "launched" herself at Hine three times, and then kicked her in the head.

    The 34-year-old Garcia's NFL days may be numbered, but the real question is: Will Luke McCown date a Playmate of the Year? I hear Brande Roderick (2001) is available.

    ELI MANNING, New York Giants
    The emotionless rookie has been downright awful in 2004, but perhaps it's because he's been quietly living it up on the New York party scene. A national magazine made the claim that on Dec. 6 (just one day after a miserable showing by Manning in a 31-7 loss to the equally woeful Washington Redskins) the rook showed up at NYC lounge Butter.

    Having attended the Monday night event on more than one occasion, I can tell you that the draw is mostly models and the Olsen twins. On this night, the 23-year-old Manning supposedly swapped phone numbers with 18-year-old actress Lindsay Lohan. If even a morsel of this is true, then although the rookie has left much to be desired on the field, at least he's showing promise off it.

    If I was dating Lindsay Lohan, I might miss some passes as well. (Yea, right, like she want's my phone number! Hey, I'm in the book Lindsay!) I wonder if Brady paid for Tara's Breast augmentation? (And you all thought he, Brady, was Gay!) Okay, I'm really holding out for Marg Helgenberger! I'm older than these guys! 'czar

  • #2
    Re: No Wonder Eli is off his game!

    At least the man has his priorities straight.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: No Wonder Eli is off his game!

      I haven't been paying much attention to the NY media, but are they getting on Eli much?

      I understand they've been going after Chad Pennington. Yesterday won't help him either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: No Wonder Eli is off his game!

        Originally posted by P/C/B FanInHI
        I haven't been paying much attention to the NY media, but are they getting on Eli much?

        I understand they've been going after Chad Pennington. Yesterday won't help him either.
        I think some people expected Eli to be Peyton "Light". It's taken Peyton 7 year to get where he/they are today. I quit reading Playboy because the centerfolds were young enough to be my Daughter, (If I had one.) However, if I was dating Lindsay Lohan....Yea, right!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: No Wonder Eli is off his game!

          Originally posted by realtyczar
          I think some people expected Eli to be Peyton "Light". It's taken Peyton 7 year to get where he/they are today. I quit reading Playboy because the centerfolds were young enough to be my Daughter, (If I had one.) However, if I was dating Lindsay Lohan....Yea, right!
          Yeah, ppl seem to forget that the Colts were 3-13 in Peyton's first season.

          Of course, they were 13-3 the following year...

          Comment

          Working...
          X