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

3 games at Wembley in 2014!

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

  • 3 games at Wembley in 2014!



    In response to growing fan support of American football in the
    United Kingdom, we will take another important step in our international
    development in 2014 when, for the first time, three regular-season games will
    be played in the UK. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced the news this
    week at the league's fall meeting in Washington, DC.>>



    The Jacksonville Jaguars,
    Atlanta Falcons,
    and Oakland Raiders
    each will play one home game in London next year at Wembley Stadium. The dates
    of the games and opponents for each club will be announced later this season.>>



    Details
    of the ticket sales process for these games will be released in due course.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  • #2
    Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

    I'd be beyond furious if the Colts ever lost a home game to London. It's not fair to take a home game away from communities who built stadiums with taxpayer dollars.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

      Next year the Colts won't be the home team it will be Raiders/Falcons/Jaguars

      Regardless its time to bring back my annual "I hate NFL games in London" rant. Look if is preseason fine but regular season games? There's only 8 the home fans experience per yer per team why should that be taken away from us for a country that when they think of football its called "soccer" here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        Next year the Colts won't be the home team it will be Raiders/Falcons/Jaguars

        Regardless its time to bring back my annual "I hate NFL games in London" rant. Look if is preseason fine but regular season games? There's only 8 the home fans experience per yer per team why should that be taken away from us for a country that when they think of football its called "soccer" here.
        I agree.

        The home field advantage that those 8 games give you is precious. Take away just one of those games when you go to a neutral field, and it could make a difference. I'm worried that sooner or later it's going to happen to the Colts. I just hope that they are the "away" team. It seems that they pick new teams every year, right? Sooner or later, we're going to be on a relatively short list of teams that haven't played there.

        Indianapolis taxpayers paid for most of Lucas Oil Stadium. Most new stadiums are built with huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, though Lucas Oil has one of the most lopsided ratios in the NFL. If we're going to pay for the stadium, then at least let us have the 8 game at home. The Colts have a great home field advantage and it would suck big time if we ever lost a game here. It's just not fair to penalize the fans who support these teams in their home markets. And I'm just looking at it from the Colts' perspective. You can say the exact same thing about any of the teams that have played as the "home" team there. I feel bad for the Vikings fans that missed out on a home game this year. I feel bad for the Falcons next year, a team who will be missing out on a game with great home field advantage in their dome.

        The money grub Goodell needs to worry about fixing Jacksonville's miserable situation in Jacksonville instead of shipping them off to London for a game just so he can line his pockets some more.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-10-2013, 10:37 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

          Hilarious that the Falcons turned ****** just in time to go to England.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Hilarious that the Falcons turned ****** just in time to go to England.
            This Falcons team reminds me of that 2001 Colts team that went 6-10 after having fantastic seasons in 1999 and 2000. We lost Edge, they have lost Julio. We had a lot of talent, but everything that could go wrong did, just like it is for them this year. I think they'll bounce back strong next year.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              This Falcons team reminds me of that 2001 Colts team that went 6-10 after having fantastic seasons in 1999 and 2000. We lost Edge, they have lost Julio. We had a lot of talent, but everything that could go wrong did, just like it is for them this year. I think they'll bounce back strong next year.
              I dunno maybe, they are a lot older than that Colts team IMO. Plus Matt Ryan is good, but he's not Peyton.


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I dunno maybe, they are a lot older than that Colts team IMO. Plus Matt Ryan is good, but he's not Peyton.
                True. Ryan is still young for a QB though, and Julio should have plenty of great years left if he heals properly.

                I don't think that they'll ever win a Super Bowl like we did, but I do think that they'll return to being a decent team next season.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                  It always drives me nuts that a team loses a home game because of this London game. Of course there is the obvious lost of home field advantage in a game because it is now on a neutral field. As others have pointed out the city that ends up paying for most of these monster stadium loses an entire game where they can make some money.

                  I just do not see how having a team in London is the end game for this. I could see having a team in Toronto, but all the way across the pond is a bit much. How many free agents will want to go over there and play while friends and family stay here in the states? It is one thing to catch a flight from say NY to Florida, but from London to Florida is a much bigger deal. So how many players they draft will want to re-sign with them? They will probably have to overpay a bunch just to keep their own guys. I just see being in London as negative on the business side of the game. Competitively they probably would be pretty good because teams traveling all the way over there would be at a huge disadvantage.

                  The travel for the London team would be terrible with 8 different flights across the pond. They would have to do a lot of work with the schedule to really combat travel issues.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                    Putting a team in London would be an incredibly stupid thing to do IMO, but I think the NFL will do it at some point soon.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                      Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                      They would have to do a lot of work with the schedule to really combat travel issues.
                      Work the road trips around a teams bye week. And with Thursday nite games, there's another break before or after a game. They'll figure it out. There's money to be made. 'nuff said.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                        Does it really matter if you move a Jacksonville home game though? They had attendance issues even when they were good.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                          I sort of want them to have a team in London just to see if it works. If it doesn't we'll make jokes forever but if it does good for them. The NFL is really the only American sports league that could try it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                            I have read surveys indicating that most UK NFL fans already have a preferred team which would make it very hard for them to embrace Jacksonville. If the Concord (which I think would entail a 3-4 hour flight to London from the East Coast) is ever reintroduced in a safe way I could maybe it could work having a team over there. However, a lot of players don't want to uproot their families and move to another country (silly I think since the UK isn't that far away and London is VERY similar to NYC culturally) and of course you have the tax issue (more legitimate). For better or worse, a lot of players will try to never get drafted there or demand trades, it would be a sticky situation. Plus, the NFL is cool as a novelty, but attendance wise could it really compete with Premier League in terms of attendance and TV rating every week? If Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea are all playing home games can you still get at least 60,000 to watch the NFL possibly the same day or day after?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 3 games at Wembley in 2014!

                              Originally posted by travmil View Post
                              Does it really matter if you move a Jacksonville home game though? They had attendance issues even when they were good.
                              That's a fair point. But Atlanta? The Dome is always packed. Sucks to penalize those fans.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X