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

Playoff Thread

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

  • Re: Playoff Thread

    Originally posted by travmil View Post
    Ray Lewis would be the starting QB with the longest time between wins? News to me...
    My bad I read it again and realized you meant QBs in which case you would be correct

    I was thinking of players overall.

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread


      Comment


      • Re: Playoff Thread

        ^^ Really ?? C'mon Reg.

        Comment


        • Re: Playoff Thread

          I think he raises a valid point I mean remember Bart Scott's interview after the Jets upset the Pats in Foxboro a few years back talking about how he can't wait, how the Pats D couldn't stop a nosebleed.

          I don't recall a lot of outrage there and Sal Pal was there handling it effectively at least compared to Erin Andrews.

          Or how about when Namath was drunk wanting to kiss Suzy Kolber but she handled that like a pro as well.

          Richard Sherman does this with Erin Andrews and some people are quick to label him a thug(despite having no off the field issues) and using the n-word.

          I mean its one thing to think he's a jerk but the racist remarks towards him said more about them than they did about Sherman.

          Comment


          • Re: Playoff Thread

            So - what does Andrews being the 'reporter' have to do with it ??

            (Quotes used because - well - she ain't one, but I digress ...............)

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread

              Well I agree I don't find Sideline Barbie impressive from a reporting standpoint and how she handled it played a role into how it was perceived.

              Big black scary dude yellin at the TV with a white woman who looked taken aback by the whole thing standing next to him.

              That's what Reggie is stating here.

              Pam Oliver wouldn't have reacted that way and if she did it wouldn't have mattered because well she's black and there's not going to be anyone that will act "overprotective" with her.

              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                Richard Sherman was an aggressive, loud mouth, egotistic idiot and Erin Andrews was the bad guy for being caught off-guard? Really? I think most reporters would have been caught off guard there. I thought he was going to start swearing on air. They were smart to cut away immediately.

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  I don't think anyone believes Erin is the bad guy here I do think she was out of her element but I thought that about her before this took place.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Playoff Thread

                    Lack of class does not have a skin color associated with it.

                    I understand that some used the word "thug" and it has, for some who say it, some racist connections.

                    I also understand the issues of the heat-of-the-moment on-field interview. But he was still a classless turd 45 minutes later.

                    Some have made way too much of it, but I still think it was pretty embarrassing, the screaming, the self-promotion, the disrespect, the me-first attitude in a team sport.

                    Sure he may be intelligent, but it's not too much to expect players to not act like that until PR people give them a talking to, days later
                    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


                    • Re: Playoff Thread

                      Reggie Miller is an idiot.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoff Thread

                        Slick,

                        I had no problem with the interview. I hated the way he taunted Crabtree by trying to shake his hand and pat him on the butt.

                        If your going to do that, do it all the time. If you lose, talk trash and taunt. But Sherman doesnt. he disappears if they lose

                        If I was a fan would I prefer a player say we are a good team, our guys played well, etc. But I have no problem with the interview.

                        I agree the racial stuff was stupid. I guess in short I was it was less me first, but such is life

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013...medium=twitter


                          Seahawks CB Richard Sherman discusses his postgame rant following Seattle's win over San Francisco.

                          RENTON, Wash. -- Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman said Wednesday that his postgame comments Sunday were ''misdirected and immature" but he is not a villain or a thug.

                          "We're talking about football here, and a lot of people took it further than football," Sherman said. "I was on a football field showing passion. Maybe it was misdirected and immature, but this is a football field. I wasn't committing any crimes and doing anything illegal. I was showing passion after a football game.

                          More Super Bowl XLVIII Coverage
                          Richard Sherman has said many times that one of his heroes is Muhammad Ali. After his recent braggadocios rant Sunday, some people have compared Sherman to Ali in his heyday, writes Terry Blount. Blog

                          Pete Carroll and the Seahawks are hoping to ride an old-school defensive formula all the way to a Super Bowl title. John Clayton discusses that topic, and many others, in this week's mailbag. Mailbag

                          "It is what it is. Things like that happen and you deal with the adversity. I come from a place where it's all adversity, so what's a little more or people telling you what you can't do. I really was surprised. If I had known it was going to blow up like that I would have approached it differently, just in terms of the way it took away from my teammates. That's the thing I feel regretful about."

                          Sherman tipped away a pass in the end zone that was intended for San Francisco 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree in the final seconds of Seattle's 23-17 victory Sunday in the NFC Championship Game. Seattle linebacker Malcolm Smith intercepted the tipped pass to seal the victory.

                          Moments later, Sherman was interviewed on Fox Sports and was asked to describe the play.

                          "I'm the best corner in the game,'' Sherman said, yelling. "When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that's the result you're gonna get. Don't you ever talk about me."

                          Sherman then was asked who was talking about him.

                          "Crabtree,'' he said. "Don't you open your mouth about the best, or I'm gonna shut it for you real quick."

                          Sherman's comments became a national rage and caused a firestorm of criticism on Twitter.

                          Sherman was most concerned by the people who called him a thug.

                          "The reason it bothers me is it seems that's the accepted way now to call someone the N-word," Sherman said. "They say thug, and that takes me aback. Maybe I'm talking loudly on the field and saying things I'm not supposed to, but there was hockey game where they didn't even play hockey. They just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I thought, 'Oh man. I'm the thug? Geez.'"

                          [+] EnlargeRichard Sherman
                          AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
                          Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman said he was simply "showing passion" after Sunday's game against the 49ers and wideout Michael Crabtree.
                          Sherman was referring to the Vancouver Canucks-Calgary Flames game last Saturday when a brawl took place two seconds into the game.

                          "I know some real thugs, and they know I'm the farthest thing from a thug,'' Sherman said. "I fought that my whole life because of where I've come from [the Compton neighborhood in Los Angeles]. You have a guy from Compton or Watts, they just think he's a thug. He's a gangster. You fight it for so long, and to have it come back up and hear people use it again is frustrating."

                          Sherman's postgame rant has led some pundits to dub the Super Bowl matchup against the Denver Broncos and quarterback Peyton Manning as The Villains versus The Virtuous.

                          "That's hilarious," Sherman said. "Any time you label [Seahawks quarterback] Russell Wilson a villain, it's got to be a joke. It's funny. We have too many great players who don't deserve that label and don't deserve to be looked at in that light. Russell Wilson and [Seattle safety] Earl Thomas have done nothing to deserve that.

                          "Now if they label me a villain, OK. Maybe my actions caused that, but I don't think I'm a villain. It's the old cliché: Don't judge a book by its cover. But they are judging the book by its cover. Judge me off the football field, not on the field right after a game is different. Now if I had gotten arrested 10 times, I could accept being a villain. But I've done nothing villainous."

                          Wilson came to Sherman's defense Wednesday.

                          "Richard has tremendous character,'' Wilson said. "He got fired up and I guess you would call it a mistake. But I know that's not how he is. He is one of the most intelligent people you will ever meet. He's one of my good friends, and I love him to death.

                          SN: Do You Like Richard Sherman?
                          SportsNationWhat did you think of Richard Sherman's postgame rant? Is Sherman the best CB in the NFL? Vote now »

                          "Richard is an unbelievable football player. I have tons of respect for him. He plays the game of football with tons of passion and tons of fire. It was one of those things where he just got excited. I know he apologized. He's a great teammate who always is focused on how he can improve and how he can help us win. He didn't mean to blow it all up."

                          Sherman said he was grateful for the people who came to his defense the past few days, including baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron.

                          "There were countless individuals, and Hank Aaron was one of them," Sherman said. "A lot of people reached out with support and I appreciate all of it, people who really know who you are and what you stand for. They are not as quick to judge."

                          Sherman said he has regrets, but he won't change who he is.

                          "I really don't know how to be anybody else,'' he said. "I can only be myself. I obviously will learn from my mistakes, try to do better in word situations and be more mature in understanding the moment.

                          "But I can't be someone else. I've tried it multiple times, and it cuts my game. If I put my all into it, you may catch me doing something like I did at the end of that game."

                          Comment


                          • Re: Playoff Thread

                            Apparently Walter Thurmond feels the same

                            http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013...t-uncalled-for

                            Thurmond: Welker hit uncalled for


                            Thurmond Blasts Welker For Hit On Talib

                            Wes Welker's hit on Aqib Talib in Sunday's AFC Championship Game didn't sit well with Seattle Seahawks cornerback Walter Thurmond.

                            "It was really uncalled for," Thurmond told reporters Wednesday. "The receiver ran right into the guy. I don't know the extent of the injury Talib had, but I thought we were supposed to protect football players in this league now. I guess not. I guess that only goes one way."

                            The NFL cleared Welker of any wrongdoing for his hit on the New England Patriots' cornerback that proved to be a key play in the Denver Broncos' 26-16 win on Sunday.

                            More from ESPN.com
                            Reiss Bill Belichick's claim that Wes Welker tried to hurt Aqib Talib is a tough judgment, since intent to injure isn't in Welker's DNA, writes Mike Reiss. Blog

                            Legwold Wes Welker has had his share of injuries this season. He knows what it is like to sit out and said he did not try to collide with Aqib Talib, writes Jeff Legwold. Blog

                            "It was a legal hit," NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino said on the NFL Network on Wednesday night.

                            Patriots coach Bill Belichick blasted Welker for the hit on Monday, calling it "one of the worst plays" he's seen in 39 years of coaching. Talib suffered a knee injury on the play and didn't return to the game. Belichick said in a radio interview Wednesday that he didn't believe the cornerback would have to undergo surgery, however.

                            Thurmond, a fourth-year player, told reporters a penalty should've been called and that Welker may have received a "star" call from the officials.

                            "If you're intentionally coming at somebody, it's supposed to be a flag," Thurmond said. "But they didn't throw the flag on him. Some players get away with a lot more than other players depending on status, but that's just the nature of the game."

                            Thurmond said the play, which is called a "rub" or "pick" when a player tries to make contact with a defender, didn't apply because Welker never lifted his head.

                            "Welker had his head down, like he was coming down the whole time," he said. "That should be a flag, and he should be getting fined. There's a whole bunch of things that should happen in that situation, but I don't run the NFL."

                            Part of a secondary nicknamed the "Legion of Boom," Thurmond knows the Seahawks will have to deal with similar plays from the Broncos in the Super Bowl.

                            "We play a lot of man coverage, so we know they're going to have a lot of crossing routes like that," Thurmond said. "We're preparing for that situation to occur. We know that kind of contact is going to happen because we play so much man, and we'll be ready for it."

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              Please ............. let Sherman and Welker meet in the middle on a 'rub' play. Maybe they'll just take each other out.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoff Thread

                                Seattle DBs sure like to talk a lot
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X