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

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...hter/#comments


    Broncos reacted to Belichick’s claims with “laughter”

    Posted by Mike Florio on January 22, 2014, 11:46 PM EST
    Belichick
    AP
    So how did the Broncos truly react to the contention from Patriots coach Bill Belichick that Denver receiver Wes Welker deliberately targeted New England cornerback Aqib Talib?

    With “laughter,” according to Vic Lombardi of CBS 4 in Denver, who joined PFT Live on Wednesday.

    Lombardi scoffed at the image of Welker, who suffered a pair of concussions this year, serving as “Knuckles Malone” for a Broncos team with much larger men like Julius Thomas and Demaryius Thomas, who could have done far more damage to Talib if that was the goal.

    Other topics included the decision of offensive coordinator Adam Gase to advise the Browns he’ll be remaining in Denver, quarterback Peyton Manning’s preparations for playing in the New Jersey elements, and the question of whether the Broncos can match the physicality of the Seahawks.

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread

      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...call/#comments

      Belichick second-guessing himself for fourth-and-3 call


      Late in the third quarter of the AFC Championship Game, with the Patriots facing fourth-and-3 at the 29-yard line, Bill Belichick decided to go for it. Tom Brady was sacked on the play, and Belichick has been kicking himself for it since.

      Belichick said on WEEI that in hindsight, he thinks a 47-yard field goal to cut the deficit from 20-3 to 20-6 would have been the better call.

      “Those three points would have been good to have at the end of the game if we would have made the kick, which we would have had a good chance to,” Belichick said, via Mike Reiss of ESPNBoston.com. “I felt like, at the time, we were down by 17 points, only had three points, and hadn’t got down there very much. I don’t think you’re going to beat Denver kicking field goals, but . . . if we would have had a field goal and then the two touchdowns we ended up getting later on, those would have been important points for us. I don’t know that was the right decision. It wasn’t, obviously, when we lost yardage on fourth down and gave the ball back without any points.”

      Obviously, it didn’t work, so Belichick wishes the Patriots had called a different play on that fourth down. But I’m not so sure that going for it was the wrong call: As Belichick said, you’re not going to beat Denver kicking field goals. By that point in the game the Patriots were way behind and probably weren’t going to win either way, but that fourth-and-3 was not a bad call. Just a call that didn’t work.

      Comment


      • Re: Playoff Thread

        http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/23/richard...-erin-andrews/

        Fox Sports cut Richard Sherman short because it started to get ‘dangerous’

        Why did Fox Sports cut short the Richard Sherman interview with Erin Andrews last Sunday? The network addressed the reason in full on Thursday afternoon during a conference call with Fox Super Bowl announcers and production staffers.

        “I saw a train coming down the tracks,” said Fox Sports producer Richie Zyontz, who produced the Seahawks-Niners game. “It was compelling television. And like Joe [Buck] had mentioned earlier [during the conference call] we kind of had a preview of that in our production meeting [with Sherman]. It started crossing over a line that I did not want to see us go. Erin handled it very well, but I kind of said, Let’s end this thing. He’s a good guy, an intelligent guy, an emotional guy and it was very compelling to watch. But it started getting a little dangerous for us.”

        Fox announcer Joe Buck said Sherman discussed his issues with Niners receiver Michael Crabtree during a production meeting a couple of days before the game.

        “He wasn’t crazy,” Buck said. “We went player by player and obviously as a corner he is going to cover a lot of guys. He said he [Crabtree] was mediocre receiver, which is what he said to the world after the game, anyway. You know those meetings are really privileged information and this kind of went into a different category and it was not our place or our desire to start up any personal feuds that a guy may have with another guy. If we start down that path as announcers, I think we are working our way into a dumb area. That is not something we are about. Richard handled that the way Richard wanted to handle that after the game and it was maybe surprising to know that what he told us in a seemingly quiet moment, he said to the world.”


        While the Sound FX footage above makes it appear that Sherman walked away from Andrews, Fox producers said on Thursday that they cut away

        Comment


        • Re: Playoff Thread

          Harbaugh has had some crushing playoff defeats when you think about it.

          - 1995 AFCCG in Pitt as a player
          - 2011 NFCCG OT loss to Giants as coach
          - 2012 Super Bowl loss (to his brother) by 3 points as coach
          - 2013 NFCCG loss to Seattle

          1995 and 2012 would have to be especially haunting. 95 was the closest he ever got as a player, and 2012 was losing the Super Bowl by 3 points as a coach. For as talented as that SF team is, there are no guarantees that they'll get there again. It's just so damn hard to get to the Super Bowl.

          Comment


          • Re: Playoff Thread

            Yeah I mean I'm surprised they made it to three conference games I thought for sure they would take a step back this year(losing before getting to the NFC Championship)

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread


              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                A funny take from Jim Rome:

                He’s 9 days out from his 3rd Super Bowl, and Peyton Manning’s probably got his beak permanently stuck in his iPad watching every snap the Seahawks have ever taken.

                But it turns out Little Brother wants to chip in. Eli lives there, balls there and plans to give Peyt the Intel on how to thrive there. Then again, exactly what is Eli going to tell Manning that he doesn’t already know? They met straight up in that house earlier this season, Peyton hung 41 on Eli and little bro was picked off 4 times. And right now the only thing they have in common is DNA.

                Sure, there was a time when Eli could tell Peyton how to play in that house….but I’m not sure even he knows anymore. I mean, you’re not going into the dark room and breaking tape of the Seahawks, are you, E? They picked you off FIVE times! Curtis Painter came off the bench and outplayd you! If I didn’t know any better, my man, I’d say you were trying to sabotage your brother so you can stay in the 1-hole in the Family Ring Count.

                If you’re really about helping your bro get ready for this guy, the best thing you can do is get out of town. Because he’d be better off taking his tips from Cooper.


                lol

                http://jimrome.com/2014/01/24/little...ts-to-chip-in/

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  As amusing as that is I think taking advice from Eli in the postseason isn't that laughable.

                  He's the NFL version of Reggie Jackson pretty much shows up at that point you never really notice him otherwise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Playoff Thread

                    I find the vitriol a bit OTT but I don't get how he didn't think this was going to blow up I mean really?! (unless it was calculated on his part then I digress)

                    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...mind-boggling/

                    Sherman calls reaction to his rant “mind-boggling”


                    Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman has been the talk of not just the NFL, but the entire country as a result of the rant that was broadcast to 50 million viewers after the NFC Championship Game. Sherman finds the outcry hard to believe.

                    “It was really mind-boggling the way the world reacted,” Sherman told Rachel Nichols of CNN.

                    Sherman said that on reflection, he probably shouldn’t have verbally attacked 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree in his post-game interview.

                    “And that was immature and I probably shouldn’t have done that. I regret doing that,” Sherman said.

                    Sherman added that people who know him off the field know him as being more thoughtful and reflective than he sounded on Sunday.

                    “I’ve always been a square, a nerd. Kind of odd, kind of awkward,” he said. “I still am to this day. People just think I’m a lot cooler ’cause I play football.”

                    It’s amazing how famous Sherman has become, even among non-football fans, in the last six days. And now he’s about to reach an even wider audience at the Super Bowl.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Playoff Thread

                      also mind-boggling to hear the NFL say that the block shown below did not happen before the touching of the pass that is merely about to happen below.



                      not dirty, not fine-able, but a missed OPI call.
                      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

                        http://www.jeffpearlman.com/when-a-b...-erin-andrews/

                        When a blog post absolutely sucks


                        Earlier today, while walking through Target (of all places), it hit me (admittedly, several days late) that A. I owe Erin Andrews a big apology; B. I’m an idiot.

                        Admittedly, Erin Andrews probably doesn’t read this blog. But perhaps she heard of the post I wrote last week—the one where I called her “the Kardashian of televised sports.”

                        In a word: Awful.

                        Writers are responsible for their words. They’re supposed to measure what they write, then measure it again and again and again. Sometimes, unfortunately, I fail to measure. An impulse shoots through my brain, and I fire away, press SAVE, then press PUBLISH. I have an idea of what I want to convey, but I don’t bother to make sure it’s conveyed properly.

                        Guilty, times 1,000.

                        First, what the blog was supposed to convey: I love televised sports. But I hate (I mean, truly hate) the way network executives have reserved the sideline reporter position for women, while keeping the play-by-play and lead analyst roles almost exclusively male. I have met many, many, many women in sports media who offer tremendous insight; who know the game as well as anyone you’ll meet; who can break down plays like Chuck Noll and explain the intricacies like Kenny Smith. And yet, they are rarely considered for the key two slots.

                        Furthermore, when it comes to women reporters, networks (in my opinion) place too great an emphasis on looks. I know … I know—it’s a visual medium, and attractiveness draws viewers. Still, it strikes me as an awful double standard. Nobody’s demanding beauty and sexiness from, say, Chris Berman or Joe Buck or Stuart Scott. Yet it seems that—bottom line—women with sex appeal have an inside track over women with fantastic knowledge and poise but, say, a belly. Or a mole. I get it. Really, I do. It just infuriates me, because I’ve known very talented women who have felt they don’t really have a shot.

                        So … that’s what I meant to convey. And, interestingly, I received several e-mails from women in sports media, thanking me for making the point. But, ultimately, I failed miserably. I blasted Erin Andrews and killed the entire intent. The post wound up being juvenile and stupid. Some accused me of being sexist—which effing tore at my insides, in that the whole goal was to speak on behalf of women. Boy, that went over well.

                        I don’t know Erin Andrews. I’ve heard she’s a nice person who works hard.

                        She certainly didn’t deserve this nonsense.

                        My apology. Sincerely.

                        PS: To the people on Twitter who have expressed your disgust with me—100 percent right on. One. Hundred. Percent. I earned it.

                        PPS: An important point: Oftentimes, when people work for corporations, the corporate entity forces an apology in a neatly worded statement. To be clear: I work for no one. I’m apologizing because my post sucked, and she deserved better. No other motive. I was wrong—period.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...thumb-surgery/

                          Patrick Willis had thumb surgery


                          Linebacker Patrick Willis joined the other members of the 49ers originally selected to the Pro Bowl in passing on the chance to play in the game and it seems his left thumb was a reason for his decision.

                          Willis posted pictures on his Instagram account that showed a cast on his left hand and Matt Barrows of the Sacramento Bee reports via a league source that the cast is a result of recent surgery on his thumb. Willis was not on the injury report heading into the NFC Championship Game, although there’s no word on whether he suffered the injury during the loss to the Seahawks.

                          Willis broke a bone in his right hand in preseason, but did not wind up missing any time during the regular season. It was the fourth time he’d broken a bone in that hand, but the left side issues are a new one for Willis. He also missed a couple of games this season because of a groin injury.

                          There wouldn’t seem to be much risk of Willis missing the team’s offseason work as a result of the surgery, although he may be limited at times once the 49ers start getting ready for next season.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Playoff Thread

                            I know the Pro Bowl isn't popular, but this has been the best game in years. The draft is turning out to be a great idea, as is the change to allow man to man coverage. This is fun...6 TOs and 6 sacks in the first half
                            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              I admit I am watching this and it is competitive the uniforms are eyesores though

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoff Thread

                                The uniforms sucked, the end was pretty fun. Last second win in a pro bowl with lots of defense? nice
                                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