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

Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

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

  • #61
    Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

    I see Bob didn't waste much time writing this one

    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...-help/6523925/

    Kravitz: Jim Irsay fighting for his life, needs help

    In a twisted way, Jim Irsay's friends have been praying for this day. They've been praying for the day when he'd reach rock bottom and be forced to come to terms with a drug problem that he's battled for some time.

    "He's a sick, sick man,'' one source told me. "He desperately needs help.''

    There was a sad inevitability to what happened Sunday night in Carmel. Irsay faces four felony counts after being arrested on preliminary charges of driving under the influence and possession of a controlled substance. For years, Colts insiders have known that Irsay was struggling again with drugs. For years, they fought to get him into rehabilitation. At the very least, they fought to get him a driver in the hopes of keeping away from getting behind the wheel.

    IRSAY: Colts owner faces four felony counts after DUI arrest

    REACTION: Local, national media on Irsay's arrest

    The Colts have been cleaning up Irsay's messes for years now. Time and again, Irsay dismissed the concerns of his close friends and confidantes, even if his increasingly gaunt physical appearance sent up red flags throughout the community.

    I asked him two months ago about his weight loss, which has brought him from 235 pounds to 165 pounds, and he insisted that the doctors wanted him to lose weight to keep the strain off his troublesome back and hip.

    I suspected otherwise.


    Those of us who are around Irsay on a semi-regular basis suspected otherwise for a very long time.

    So why didn't you write it?

    That's a fair question. But it's much like the baseball players during the steroid era. Suspicions cannot be the basis for news stories. My feeling all along has been, "Unless he gets arrested for drugs, or acts erratically in a public setting while obviously under the influence, it will remain nothing more than an educated guess.''

    Now he's been arrested.

    The game has changed.

    He has two big problems, besides the obvious drug issue: He's crazy rich and he has lots of free time. That is a dangerous cocktail for a man with a genetic predisposition to substance abuse.

    That doesn't make him a bad man, just a troubled one, one who has been in and out of rehab on multiple occasions, one who needs to get himself some help again if he wants to be alive for the Colts next Super Bowl.

    This is not written in anger. It's written with compassion – although if he'd hurt someone while driving, it would take on a different tone. This is a man in the throes of addiction, a disease he's been fighting for years and years with mixed results.

    Now comes the wake-up call.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      I really don't know how the owner of the Saints was involved in bounty gate, but an owner who is addicted to prescription drugs and has erratic behavior seems like a different situation.

      You can't trust Jim Irsay in front of a camera as an NFL representative right now if you're the league. Frankly it would be the first good decision they've made about their rep in a long time.

      Irsay is a great winner, but this is the kind of dice you roll with him as your owner.
      It doesn't matter if the Saints owner personally knew about that stuff. All that matters is that the organization itself was viewed by the league of flagrantly violating the integrity of the game, and then was handed some of the stiffest penalties ever. The organization had a tremendous black eye. But I don't think anyone cares about that when the city hosts the Super Bowl, nor should they.

      How many times did Ir$ay speak publicly during the Super Bowl two years ago? I don't remember him doing it much, if at all. All people care about is the two teams playing and the city itself. No one really cares about the franchise who makes a home in the host city. Two years ago was a bit of an exception because Manning was going out the door and his bro was playing, so naturally people were interested. But I don't remember seeing much of Woody Johnson or John Mara this year when it was in NY/NJ.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        It's not like Irsay hosts the SB himself or even owns Lucas Oil Stadium. He's just a tenant. It's hosted by the city, put together by a committee, and if Irsay is part of that committee (I honestly can't remember), he's only one person on it. There's no real logical reason why this would impact our SB bid as a city.
        He is the owner of the host team. I'm not saying the NFL couldn't remove him from consideration (easy enough to say that Jim is not allowed on TV during the super bowl week), but I think they will definitely consider it and they probably should. Sucks, but what can you do.

        Either way, super bowl or not, I hope Irsay finally gets some real help.


        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

          I feel bad for Irsay, but not as bad as I would feel for some working class stiff that has the same problems. Irsay seems to have pretty much unlimited money and no day-to-day responsibilities, so if anyone can come back from this, it would be a guy with financial access to any rehab facility and the ability to make getting better his full-time job.

          And I hate to be morbid, but what the hell would happen to the Colts if something bad happened to Irsay and he could no longer own the team?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

            After the good week that we had last week it sucks that this is going to be the big talking point. I think this is the best thing because now maybe he is forced to get some help. Everything I've heard about him is that he's a really likable and nice guy, and he does great things for the fanbase and community. I hope he gets help
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

              How many times did Ir$ay speak publicly during the Super Bowl two years ago? I don't remember him doing it much, if at all. All people care about is the two teams playing and the city itself. No one really cares about the franchise who makes a home in the host city. Two years ago was a bit of an exception because Manning was going out the door and his bro was playing, so naturally people were interested. But I don't remember seeing much of Woody Johnson or John Mara this year when it was in NY/NJ.
              And that's when we heard from Irsay and well to a lesser extent Manning you know how he was going to stay here if he was healthy(even though Irsay made up his mind to let him ago long before that but I digress) and then we found out that Manning was medically cleared that was more of a focal point than the actual teams playing(and that's saying something since it was the Pats/Giants) And of course Rob Lowe's tweet about Manning retiring so yes we did hear from Irsay that week.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                He is the owner of the host team. I'm not saying the NFL couldn't remove him from consideration (easy enough to say that Jim is not allowed on TV during the super bowl week), but I think they will definitely consider it and they probably should. Sucks, but what can you do.

                Either way, super bowl or not, I hope Irsay finally gets some real help.
                There's not really a host team. The city hosts it. I know what you're saying... but when the SB is in Miami, you don't relate the Dolphins to the SB. You relate it to Miami and the stadium. The host team has nothing to do with it, except they play there. The effort is so much bigger than the host team... the entire city takes on the responsibility and the profit.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                  Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                  I feel bad for Irsay, but not as bad as I would feel for some working class stiff that has the same problems. Irsay seems to have pretty much unlimited money and no day-to-day responsibilities, so if anyone can come back from this, it would be a guy with financial access to any rehab facility and the ability to make getting better his full-time job.

                  And I hate to be morbid, but what the hell would happen to the Colts if something bad happened to Irsay and he could no longer own the team?

                  $$ doesn't cure addiction it has to come from within. Until he fixes that nothing will work.

                  Putting that aside I think at one point Irsay almost lost the team for something similar and then he went to rehab and was supposedly better.

                  I'm guessing if its not taken away from him his daughters would run it.

                  If he loses the team entirely yeah that's a good question who would come and save the team from leaving Indy at that point.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                    I'm not disagreeing that Indy is much more involved than the Colts, but we know that often **** flows down hill. Well the owner of the team just had a pretty big flub and it's going to be fresh in everyone's minds when they sit down soon.


                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                      I will be extremely disappointed if the Colts lose a draft pick over this. I have been a 10 year season ticket holder and have spent thousands over the years supporting the team and the NFL, not to mention the emotional investment. The loss of a draft pick would hurt the fans like us a lot more than Irsay himself. The NFL can throw the kitchen sink at Jim for all I care, but they shouldn't do anything that hurts the fans.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        $$ doesn't cure addiction it has to come from within. Until he fixes that nothing will work.

                        Putting that aside I think at one point Irsay almost lost the team for something similar and then he went to rehab and was supposedly better.

                        I'm guessing if its not taken away from him his daughters would run it.

                        If he loses the team entirely yeah that's a good question who would come and save the team from leaving Indy at that point.

                        The team isn't leaving Indy under any circumstances. They have one of the most lopsided stadium deals in the entire planet. That's the thing about Irsay. He might be troubled, but the Colts have done nothing but thrive under his watch, both financially and on the field.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                          Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
                          I will be extremely disappointed if the Colts lose a draft pick over this. I have been a 10 year season ticket holder and have spent thousands over the years supporting the team and the NFL, not to mention the emotional investment. The loss of a draft pick would hurt the fans like us a lot more than Irsay himself. The NFL can throw the kitchen sink at Jim for all I care, but they shouldn't do anything that hurts the fans.
                          I think that's a realistic possibility I mean if Goodell goes soft on him he won't hear the end of it (of course that's never stopped him before) I mean its not like the Broncos execs last off season you could suspend them they don't own the team they're employees.

                          He's an owner the only way to hurt him is either take away the SB bid or lose a draft pick. Nothing else will do it(I don't think he'll serve any time for this just get probation and a hefty fine)

                          We the fans are collateral in all of this

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                            I think that's a realistic possibility I mean if Goodell goes soft on him he won't hear the end of it (of course that's never stopped him before) I mean its not like the Broncos execs last off season you could suspend them they don't own the team they're employees.

                            He's an owner the only way to hurt him is either take away the SB bid or lose a draft pick. Nothing else will do it(I don't think he'll serve any time for this just get probation and a hefty fine)

                            We the fans are collateral in all of this
                            I can't say I disagree with anything you said but I will still feel betrayed if this happens.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving


                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X