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

Vnzla81

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

  • Re: Vnzla81

    Hicks is taking the brunt of the abuse, because he was the guy stuck holding the bag for Peck, Shade, and the other mods who did little or nothing while the situation continued to deteriorate.
    I have stayed out of this, I am going to stay out of this & I would prefer not to be mentioned in this.

    However since you have taken the time to single both myself and Shade out as mods who did little or nothing I feel compelled to speak for myself.

    NOTE I AM NOT IN ANY WAY EXPRESSING THE OPINION OF SHADE, I WILL LET HIM SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.

    I deeply resent the accusation that I stood around and did nothing over the past few years. For someone who admittedly has avoided the place for awhile now you seem certain to have the answers. So do you care to share with all of us how you came to the conclusion? Do you have the p.m. exchanges that went on over the years between myself and several posters and admins?

    I do.

    Do you have access to the admin board and and can show years and years of posts dealing with this very topic that I addressed?

    I do.

    Perhaps you are confused on the chain of command around here so let me make one thing very clear here.

    AT NO TIME HAVE I EVER BEEN THE LEAD ADMINISTRATOR TO THIS SITE.

    I have never had the authority to unilaterally act on my own with a major decision.

    I have been a mediator a counselor and advocate and a few other things over that time frame so for you to accuse me of doing nothing when I have absolute proof that I certainly did was frankly ******** and I resent it.

    Now while I won't speak for Shade I will defend him in the same exact way. Just because you disagree'd with the way he handled it, and for about a year he was the lead admin., doesn't mean he did nothing either. That is also ********.

    He certainly did and I have the p.m.'s between myself and him to prove it as well as the admin. board where he expressed his opinion along with the rest of us.

    Do I say we handled everything appropriately? No. But we did act on it and to say otherwise is absolutely without question 100% false.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • Re: Vnzla81

      I thanked Peck's post because I agree with it. I also thank him for his work moderating this forum...not just his Odd Thoughts for which he should be paid to write.

      The point is, each of the posters in this thread (including cdash and count55 whom I have locked horns with), add a lot to this forum. My advice is that everyone take a deep breath and lighten up. Try not to take things here too seriously. I enjoy coming here to debate topics and learn more about the team and its players...and I don't really like to see this level of dissension. V is not worth that.

      The point is, V deserved his fate. Maybe the timing could be criticized. Maybe the post that was used to push things over the edge as well. But the man earned it. I know it and everyone here knows it too. So, can we calm down and get back to discussing Pacer basketball? The teams doing pretty well...
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 01-12-2014, 10:37 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Vnzla81

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        The point is, each of the posters in this thread (including cdash and count55 whom I have locked horns with)
        I don't know how I should feel about this. On the one hand, it was a compliment, so for that I thank you. On the other hand, I am trying to remember locking horns with you and I can't come up with anything, which means I've been an ******* more times than I can remember on here

        Comment


        • Re: Vnzla81

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          I don't know how I should feel about this. On the one hand, it was a compliment, so for that I thank you. On the other hand, I am trying to remember locking horns with you and I can't come up with anything, which means I've been an ******* more times than I can remember on here
          I have to be honest. I am afraid you are correct. But I'm also afraid I'm the pot calling the kettle black.

          Edit: BTW, if you are grouped with Count55 you are in good company. Just because I've locked horned with someone doesn't mean I don't respect their opinion.

          Comment


          • Re: Vnzla81

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post

            EDIT: If you really think the admins are this vindictive, you'd think they'd ban you too instead of answering your questions and actually holding a debate on the topic.
            I recently hit my 10 year mark. Hasn't my tenure kicked in by now? I doubt they'd want to take on the union if they banned me.

            Comment


            • Re: Vnzla81

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Do you have any clue about the number of infractions we handed out to people baiting vnzla or just (really) overreacting?

              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
              ummm...yea...i had a post deleted just the other day and received an infraction....and still find it bewildering...the only plausible explanation was it was directed at the poster in question....

              its very simple...the forum is a much better place now that hes gone...it was a much better place in the 30 days or so he was gone before...

              and if indeed its true what some say about him being much different in person than he is on here...then another thing is certain...hes much better off as well...because if this place brings out what it seemingly did and transforms him into the persona we all had to deal with...well..then...again, hes better off not being here...

              so hicks has done just about everyone a huge favor...even if some are too blind to realize it or a very select few with an obvious personal agenda want to disagree...

              but again..one thing is an absolute certainty...the forum is markedly better...and much more pleasant to read
              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

              Comment


              • Re: Vnzla81

                To be perfectly honest, the operative word is respect . You can lock horns, disagree, vent, yell, whatever - as long as it is clear there is respect it is fine.

                Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • Re: Vnzla81

                  Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                  so hicks has done just about everyone a huge favor...even if some are too blind to realize it or a very select few with an obvious personal agenda want to disagree...
                  Obvious personal agendas? What would those be? Are we trying to run a coup d'Ă©tat against Hicks on his own website? Come on now, let's leave the extremes at home. Some of us disagree on how it was handled. We expressed as much. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I know I, personally, never wanted anything more than a healthy discussion about it, which I think we have had here. That was my agenda. I doubt anyone thought we were going to get vnzla's ban lifted or anything like that.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vnzla81

                    Wait, some of you don't think V intentionally staked his claim to inflammatory opinions? His two favorite opinions were Danny Granger and David West being overpaid.

                    I mean I really didn't want to see the guy banned because I have a thick skin and admittedly can go round and round for hours with someone and be thoroughly entertained, but I also realize that most people are not like that.

                    Vnzla was a dick on here. He wasn't in real life. Honestly, if I had never met the guy in real life I would have thought he was just a royal dick who liked smelling his own farts, but since I met him I realized there is more to him than that. However, he was asked more than once even publicly to try and tone down his machismo (BillS and Peck were the first two to describe V this way and I htink it is on the nose), and he just didn't. When you're in person it's OK, he can explain the machismo away with logic, unfortunately in the written medium, V often went down to a lower denominator of winking smiley faces and LOLZ. That annoys the heck out of a lot of people. Even if it doesn't annoy the heck out of EVERYONE.

                    I got really tired of trying to have a debate with V though by the same token and having a bunch of people come in and just call for him to be banned. It clogged the topic at hand and often allowed V to wiggle out of corners where he had clearly been caught with an over-stated opinion. That was a major issue to all of this. Part of the reason V never got proven wrong is that people would often let him off the hook by calling for him to be banned regardless of what he posted.

                    It was a screwed up a situation from GO. V's personality is not text/internet friendly. If this was really about a war against V, the dude would have been gone 3 years ago. I know Peck has stuck his neck out for him more than once and had tried to explain to him why people had issues. I know Hicks hasn't liked him in a long time probably since 2011. If this was really a personal thing, this thread would have happened then not now, because V wouldn't have made it this long.

                    I agree with what Count said. The limb was dying. PD was changing. People were more reactionary and everyone thought calling for banz was the way to solve a problem. Is it all V's fault? No, maybe not, but he was definitely the finger that was frost bitten the worst and sometimes you have to sacrifice a finger to save the hand.

                    Honestly, I'm shocked the guy made it back from his Danny Granger war path back in the summer when literally anyone who suggested Danny could help us met with a LOL or a smirk smiley, the guys balance just went too far in the red. I'll miss debating him, just because I love debating pretty much anything, but I can understand why he had to go.

                    As far as what V said, I've been the target of his intentionally worded barbs. he makes it look like an honest mistake, but he's doing it to needle you. Yes, calling the site a "blog" is on the surface just a word that is not that inflammatory, but you have to consider the source in a situation like this. Let me promise you all, V knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he sent that to Hicks. The guy isn't an idiot.
                    Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-12-2014, 11:49 PM.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Vnzla81

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      I recently hit my 10 year mark. Hasn't my tenure kicked in by now? I doubt they'd want to take on the union if they banned me.
                      V had what? the 5th or 6th most posts on this forum? With more than a few willing to speak up in his defense.

                      I know you're upset Soll, but I also know that you're smart enough to know why this really happened. It wasn't about one post, and I also think you know that deep down V did **** on a lot of people over the year. Eventually **** piles up. You can only shovel it so many times.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Vnzla81

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        V had what? the 5th or 6th most posts on this forum? With more than a few willing to speak up in his defense.

                        I know you're upset Soll, but I also know that you're smart enough to know why this really happened. It wasn't about one post, and I also think you know that deep down V did **** on a lot of people over the year. Eventually **** piles up. You can only shovel it so many times.
                        That quoted post of mine was just sarcasm, TJ.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vnzla81

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          That quoted post of mine was just sarcasm, TJ.
                          Oops

                          I guess here's my final word on this, because I really didn't want to come in here in the first place, but I don't think V should have been banned for the last event that took place, BUT if I was the admin I would have banned him two years ago. There was a time before V became public enemy number 1 before every thread he went to people called for his head, where he was a just a royal *******. The fact he had made it past that time period can be debated up and down, if I was in the admins shoes, I would have dropped the banhammer then. V had toned it down, I think it sucks that he got banned during this great season, but it is kind of funny that West immediately turned around and had maybe his best game of the season Friday LOL

                          All I'm saying I'm surprised he made it this long, I don't think that was Hicks choice, but I think PD as a community gave V plenty of rope. He finally hung himself.
                          Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-13-2014, 12:01 AM.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Vnzla81

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Do you have any clue about the number of infractions we handed out to people baiting vnzla or just (really) overreacting?

                            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                            If you're asking me, my opinion is it was too little, too late and the horse was far out of the barn. Too many people, including even some mods, had engaged in the type of behavior that was problematic that it had grown cancerous overall. Plus, one problem with the infraction system as it's used here is nobody but the receiver gets any guidance from it. The offending post disappears and likely the followups/replies do too. Then, unless you just happened to be Johnny on the Spot to see it all go down, you have no idea where the lines were and what was said. The posts were erased that could've served as guideposts for the entire forum to see an example of where the line is being drawn.

                            So for example if there's a history of arguing with Vnzla and certain things were allowed and it's all formerly been condoned by the admins either directly or by implication (by not setting a better example but to join in in some cases) then those examples stood for everyone to see. Then if the tactic changed to handing out infractions and deleting posts then that isn't going to have the same impact. Particularly short term. Things will keep popping up over and over again. If you put the line one place and make it obvious, it's very hard to move the line if you don't make it just as obvious. And still, when it come down to it, Vnzla was the one getting the ultimate infraction.

                            O'Brien talked about the importance of defense but what he really cared about was the volume of 3's his teams could take and make and defense was barely an afterthought. That example was set by his actions over and over again. If one day he suddenly started caring about defense then the team wouldn't get the picture unless he started visibly coaching differently for all to see. Not just talking to Bird about it in the office and having a few private conversations with players behind closed doors.

                            Edit: We're kind of going around in circles but hopefully something resonates and a future situation does not end up like this with some lessons learned by all everyone.
                            Last edited by Bball; 01-13-2014, 05:56 AM.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vnzla81

                              A few words in answer and as remarks, not to perpetuate this thread;

                              @Bball: if the law says 3 strikes and you're out, does the 3rd have to be the worst or can it be the smallest of the 3 and does the graveness make a difference to it being "out"?
                              I don't believe it does and therefore anyone arguing that the 350th violation, however minor in some eyes, is not a justifiable "out" misses the entire point and should be pointed to a little story about a boy, a flock of sheep and boredom, Cry Wolf only goes down this much just like it maybe fun to yell fire in a busy convention or push the fire-alarm button at a party in a hotel, it's all against the law and whether or not damages were done is not that relevant

                              @Count: you were on track with 90% of your post, the last but suggesting admins had done little or nothing ruined all the good work, because there you made an assumption that not only did you understand it, you would also have handled it better and been more active. Now that is something (as Peck pointed out vehemently) which is wrong on all accounts.
                              Which was right however is how we deal with people like Olblu and Vnzla, they are very hard to deal with as an admin force. The least moderation will earn the admins a bad reputation, to many infractions and his followers come up and rise to the defense, however few there may be they are still a disturbance.

                              I've felt when I banned him 30 days not to long ago, and yes that was me, unilaterally but allowing my fellow admins to change this aftert the fact, I did so because he crossed lines, to many times.
                              I made it clear to him in PM that his stay on this board was nearing it's end if he did not clean up his act, since we ALL felt that the board had degraded badly over the past period where his presence became more and more prominent. His rise to prominence was equal to the demise of the board and the loss of posters most of us appreciate when they post.
                              It lead to friction among admins, some which still remains, it even lead to me admonishing Bills and "asking" him to drop the sarcasm, and lastly yes (@bball) it made me reconsonsider what on earth I am doing here and why on earth I am putting up with all this.

                              @sollozzo: you are wrong in so many ways that for you to say "you don't understand" mean that you're telling me one of two things, either you truly don't understand/are to blind to see and to that I can only express pitty or you are an agent for Vnzla and he posts through you, which I can understand, but not appreciate.

                              What we tried to achieve with this banning, like we did with all the non-spam bannings around here, is to improve or restore the community feeling and posting with respect for what this board is known for throughout the world. Shwoing respect is not easy, being polite even harder, but still it is nice if we all try to be civilized in our postings, and this make this a place where you can come daily to read up on and discuss one of your favorite topics which in actual fact should you do this at home or in the local, might earn you a bad rep for never having anything else to talk about.

                              play nice
                              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vnzla81

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                He was alive as of December 20:

                                (note the thread starter....)

                                http://forums.colts.com/topic/24430-...qbs-this-year/
                                And I notice that they wised up and banned him too. He made it here longer than he did there. That should tell some folks that the admins here are beyond patient when he can't make it at two differnet forums. It's well known that I think they were too patient in his case but whatever. I don't get a vote.
                                Last edited by travmil; 01-13-2014, 10:47 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X