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

2014 NFL offseason thread

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

  • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

    Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
    I don't think that Mathis suspension is completely without merit, I mean it IS a banned substance no matter the condition.

    I do think it's ******** that rice got away with barely a scrape. Beating a woman is the second most cowardly and dishonorable thing I can think of just short of beating a child.

    I wouldnt even allow that disgusting human being back into the league at all.
    That's the problem. I'm really not trying to argue about Mathis, more about how unbelieveable insulting a 2 game suspension for domestic violence is. The NFL is sending the message that steroid usage is twice as bad as beating up women.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

      Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
      Heck Big Ben has more to complain about than any of the drug offenders. His incident did not even make it to court did it?
      Nope never got arrested either. He got 4 games but I think it was mostly due to the bad press of it all/her filing a lawsuit.

      Which I think people here are overlooking I mean really lets face it Ray Rice isn't the only dude that hits women in the NFL sorry to say so while 2 games is a joke people would've said the same about 4, or 6 etc. However his case was highly publicized because it was on tape and featured by TMZ.

      Which is why any of us are talking about it now.

      Putting that aside this woman still stayed with him and they got married. Had she left him or pressed charges he would've gotten a tougher punishment. That's a factor here as well.

      Comment


      • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

        Marshawn Lynch is holding out I thought I posted that guess not.

        Comment


        • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

          http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-for-a-reason/

          Pete Carroll on Marshawn Lynch: It’s called a contract for a reason


          Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch is unhappy with his contract and expressing that displeasure by staying away from training camp, an approach that General Manager John Schneider says that the team isn’t planning to give him another one with two years to go on the current pact.

          Coach Pete Carroll echoed Schneider’s comments on Friday, saying that the deal they gave Lynch in 2012 was part of the organization’s long-term plan to build a winning team and that they expect Lynch to hold up his end of that contract.

          “It’s a contract for a reason. We made a decision and it was signed, by us and by them,” Carroll said, via USA Today. “We expect them to honor their contract just as we will. We’re going to honor it and we expect them to do the same.”

          Red Bryant, Chris Clemons and other players released by the Seahawks with time and money left on their contract would probably be interested to know that the Seahawks’ policy is to honor every contract until the moment it expires, especially since they were doing Lynch one better and showing up for work before they were cut loose. USC might feel the same way about Carroll leaving the school for the Seahawks while still under contract.

          Carroll’s skewed view of the way contracts work is beside the point when it comes to the Lynch situation, though. Right now, the Seahawks have made it clear that they’ll move on with Robert Turbin and Christine Michael before giving Lynch any more money and Lynch has made it clear he won’t show up until he gets more money. Someone is going to have to change their mind if Beast Mode is going to run again this season.

          Comment


          • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

            Pete Carroll has been in the NFL far too long to make that stupid a comment. Holdouts are the player's version of un-guaranteed contracts. If you underperform your deal you get released and your contract gets ripped up. If you out-perform it, you hold out until they rip it up and give you a better one. Can't have it both ways, Pete.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

              Anyone go to Colts training camp?


              Comment


              • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                Comparing Rice to the drug suspensions are apples and oranges because the drug suspensions are collectively bargained issues in which there is a by-the-book number of games agreed to by both sides. With Rice OTOH, the decision laid completely on the shoulders of Goodell and his henchmen. It is certainly odd that Big Ben got suspended 6 games back in 2010 while Rice only got 2 games here. There is often little rhyme or reason to what Goondell does.

                Comment


                • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Pete Carroll has been in the NFL far too long to make that stupid a comment. Holdouts are the player's version of un-guaranteed contracts. If you underperform your deal you get released and your contract gets ripped up. If you out-perform it, you hold out until they rip it up and give you a better one. Can't have it both ways, Pete.

                  But Lynch isn't outperforming his contract. Lynch signed his current contract after the 2011 season (1204 yds, 12 touchdowns, 4.2 YPC). In 2013, Lynch went for 1257 yards, 12 touchdowns, and 4.2 YPC. In other words, he put up virtually the same numbers last year as he did in the season before he signed his current deal. The Seahawks gave him a contract that both parties felt was fair based on his elite production. It's not as if Lynch signed his current contract when he was some no name second string back and then exploded into an elite running back while making pennies. If that were the case, then Lynch would have a legit gripe. Lynch's issue is that he obviously understands that he's at the tail end of his prime as an NFL running back, so he wants to cash in right now while he's still great. The Seahawks understand this too, so we'll see who blinks first. Apparently the Seahawks are very comfortable with the guys they have behind Lynch. The Seahawks aren't going to break the bank for an old Marshawn Lynch when they are going to be steamrolled by the contracts of the likes of Wilson and Sherman in the future. There is only so much to go around.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    maybe there's a silver lining and this whole things ends up getting Stephen A. Smith fired

                    http://deadspin.com/first-take-discu...d-b-1610831462
                    Ah the it is your fault you made me mad and I punched you argument. Was wondering when we would get that. Now hopefully this will mean the end of that moron. Beadle was not to nice with her response to what Smith said. Watch Beadle get get punished and nothing done to Smith.

                    Listened to Mike and Mike's interview with Adolpho Birch and the NFL thinks it is fine because they are the only one handing out a punishment.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                      Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                      Ah the it is your fault you made me mad and I punched you argument. Was wondering when we would get that. Now hopefully this will mean the end of that moron. Beadle was not to nice with her response to what Smith said. Watch Beadle get get punished and nothing done to Smith.

                      Listened to Mike and Mike's interview with Adolpho Birch and the NFL thinks it is fine because they are the only one handing out a punishment.
                      I actually think nothing will happen to Beadle although she's a complete hypocrite considering she was laughing at Jay Z over the whole elevator incident with his sister in law.

                      While I think SAS should've probably not said anything there is a hypocrisy here. I mean a lot of people were saying what did Jay Z say/do to get her so upset. Even though that video showed her trying to attack him.

                      The roles reversed? We'd talk about what an abusive jerk Jay Z is and that Beyonce should leave him over it.

                      Through all of this Ray Rice's wife stayed with him you could say she's the battered wife but nobody ever asks why isn't she leaving him over this? I mean she had an out not to mention a kid here. One would think she would do what it takes to not end up like Jevon Belcher's GF did.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        I actually think nothing will happen to Beadle although she's a complete hypocrite considering she was laughing at Jay Z over the whole elevator incident with his sister in law.

                        While I think SAS should've probably not said anything there is a hypocrisy here. I mean a lot of people were saying what did Jay Z say/do to get her so upset. Even though that video showed her trying to attack him.

                        The roles reversed? We'd talk about what an abusive jerk Jay Z is and that Beyonce should leave him over it.

                        Through all of this Ray Rice's wife stayed with him you could say she's the battered wife but nobody ever asks why isn't she leaving him over this? I mean she had an out not to mention a kid here. One would think she would do what it takes to not end up like Jevon Belcher's GF did.
                        His wife not leaving him really has nothing to do with what he did. the comparison to the Jay Z incident is apples and oranges as well. If there had been someone to get between the two of them to keep him from knocking her out then the whole thing never materializes. Nothing she said should have resulted in him hitting her, for that is just self control. Even if she attacked him he probably could have handled it without laying her out. To put any blame on her for his actions is wrong, and even if they did kiss and make up, are going to counseling, and end up having a long happy marriage, the league should have still set the bar higher for things like this.

                        The NBA is finally climbing out of the image of it being full of "thugs" and "hoods" and the NFL would be wise to crack down hard on any activity which paints them in a bad light.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                          Training camp related but Peyton though....

                          http://www.9news.com/story/sports/nf...cing/13271693/
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                            Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                            His wife not leaving him really has nothing to do with what he did. the comparison to the Jay Z incident is apples and oranges as well. If there had been someone to get between the two of them to keep him from knocking her out then the whole thing never materializes. Nothing she said should have resulted in him hitting her, for that is just self control. Even if she attacked him he probably could have handled it without laying her out. To put any blame on her for his actions is wrong, and even if they did kiss and make up, are going to counseling, and end up having a long happy marriage, the league should have still set the bar higher for things like this.

                            The NBA is finally climbing out of the image of it being full of "thugs" and "hoods" and the NFL would be wise to crack down hard on any activity which paints them in a bad light.

                            Actually it has everything to do with this I don't think he would've gotten just 2 games had she left him and taken the kid with her. Especially since we have a video of the incident. Had she left him and taken the kid there would be a lot more bad press and Goodell would've give him a longer suspension. I mean Ben Roethlisberger got 4 games over being accused of rape and he wasn't even charged for it. He had way more bad press over it than Ray Rice did with his incident. And no I don't think her staying with him means I think she deserves to be abused but I don't think this is the first time something violent has happened between them. A man won't stop abusing you until you die or leave him.

                            My point in bringing up Jay Z is that Beadle was ragging on him for letting Solange hit him but had he hit her back we'd be talking about how abusive he is.

                            Men shouldn't hit women and women shouldn't hit men its such a simple concept that nobody seems to grasp apparently.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                              Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                              Training camp related but Peyton though....

                              http://www.9news.com/story/sports/nf...cing/13271693/
                              I feel he and Mark Madsen should have a dance off


                              His kids visited the other day finally we see the other twin I was starting to think she wasn't real


                              Comment


                              • Re: 2014 NFL offseason thread

                                Ewwww although how could she not know?!

                                http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/...itted-disease/

                                PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – New Pittsburgh Steelers defensive lineman Cam Thomas is being sued by a San Diego woman for allegedly giving her herpes.
                                TMZ Sports first reported the story.
                                In the lawsuit, the woman named “Adrienne” claims Thomas not only gave her herpes, but also hid it from her multiple times, saying that a zipper malfunction caused the sores.
                                Thomas is a nose tackle who played for the San Diego Chargers last year.
                                TMZ says Adrienne is also claiming Thomas was physically abusive to her during their relationship.
                                There has been no comment from Thomas or his lawyers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X