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

Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

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

  • #16
    Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

    Originally posted by spreedom View Post
    No, it's because Dungy is a Bible-thumping homophobe. That's the only factor that influences his opinion here.
    I don't belive Dungy is a homophobe and hates gays. Rather because of his religion he simply can't accept the idea of being gay and is wrong.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

      Originally posted by RWB View Post
      I don't belive Dungy is a homophobe and hates gays. Rather because of his religion he simply can't accept the idea of being gay and is wrong.
      tomato, tomahto

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        Dude advocated, strongly, for Vick to get a second chance. Which I agree with. Maybe his opinion "evolved" but he never cared about the distraction before.

        And don't gimme the "yeah, but Vick was good" ****. One, because he really wasn't all that good, exciting to be sure, but not really very good. And two, who gives a **** how good a guy is when you try to play yourself up as The Moral Arbiter of Professional Football? Hell, at least be honest, don't pull this "it's a distraction" ********. He never gave a damn about distractions before they conflicted with his religious beliefs. He definitely didn't with any of the problems the Colts had when he was here. At least he put his name on it so there's that I guess, but stop hiding Dungy.

        And here he is on Tebow:

        http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/stor...-espn-magazine
        "There's no going halfway with Tebow anymore," says former Colts coach Tony Dungy. "You either gotta sell out and give him the keys to your team or stay away. Because, unfortunately, there's too much attention for him to be a regular, developing backup like everyone else."
        Sort of consistent, I guess. Just forgot the "give Sam the keys to your defense" part.

        Edit: Never mind. Tebow works as a backup too.
        http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...n=Twitter_news

        With the Peyton Manning circus wrapped, we shift gears to something even more surreal: Tebow Watch 2012.

        NFL Network's Michael Lombardi reports that five teams have inquired about Tebow's services, and while the names of those teams remain shrouded in mystery, NBC NFL analyst Tony Dungy has a feeling about one Tebow suitor:

        "Left-handed guy. Same offense. Mobile quarterback," Dungy told the Dan Patrick show on Tuesday.. "As much as Mike (Vick) has been hurt, if you're Andy Reid, you probably have to look at it, and think about it."

        Bringing Tebow into the mix requires in-house commitment and a flair for creativity from a coaching staff. We've seen little of the latter from Jacksonville of late, but Dungy calls the Jaguars an option because a fresh coaching staff might be willing to take a shot (and we know Shad Khan is a fan). Same goes for the Dolphins, clearly desperate for a quarterback. Folks, they just signed David Garrard -- would Tebow be such a stretch?
        Last edited by dal9; 07-22-2014, 01:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

          Originally posted by RWB View Post
          I don't belive Dungy is a homophobe and hates gays. Rather because of his religion he simply can't accept the idea of being gay and is wrong.
          Intolerance of gays is homophobia. And supporting laws that do not allow same-sex marriage is intolerance.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

            And if true, perhaps bigotry goes both ways. Is it so hard to accept that man's beliefs? Or is it easier to insult him because his beliefs don't align with yours. What's the difference man? Just saying.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

              He thinks that being gay is a lifestyle ffs!!!!

              Tony Dungy @TonyDungy

              @StampedeBlue I don't agree with Jason Collins' lifestyle but think he deserves respect and should have opportunities like anyone else!
              3:47 PM - 3 May 2013

              http://www.stampedeblue.com/2013/5/3...-jason-collins
              Never forget

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...syleaguegm.com

                Tony Dungy’s statement regarding his Michael Sam comments

                [Editor's note: In response to quotes that appeared in Monday's Tampa Tribune, Tony Dungy has released a statement. The full content of it appears below.]

                On Monday afternoon while on vacation with my family, I was quite surprised to read excerpts from an interview I gave several weeks ago related to this year’s NFL Draft, and I feel compelled to clarify those remarks.

                I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.

                I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.

                I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.

                I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

                I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.

                The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.

                What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

                I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.

                I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.

                I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.

                My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                  Really glad the Dungy/Polian era is over
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                    I wouldn't want an Oprah Reality show on my team either.

                    And the Colts will never have a run of sustained excellence approaching the Dungy/Polian era. Of that I am confident.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                      Eh that run of excellence probably had more to do with Peyton than it did with Dungy/Polian.

                      That era probably won't be matched, but I think we will be fine.

                      Don't get me wrong, Polian built a hell of a team during his tenure, my beef was more with his arrogance and wanting to be the smartest guy in the room.

                      I liked Dungy, but didn't like some of his ways of coaching and his holier than thou act.
                      Super Bowl XLI Champions
                      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                        At the very least I resent Tony for insisting Caldwell be his successor when he retired.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          At the very least I resent Tony for insisting Caldwell be his successor when he retired.
                          Caldwell got to as many Super Bowls in two years with Peyton as Dungy did in seven. Granted he didn't win, but that 09 team was not as talented as the 06 team. Also, the Saints were a much much much much better team than the Bears because they actually had an offense.

                          Caldwell is not my type of coach because I like coaches who show a little bit of fire on the sidelines. That being said, the guy was setup to fail in 2011. Maybe great coaching could have squeezed out another couple of wins, but no one could win with Collins and Painter.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-22-2014, 03:37 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                            I don't like Caldwell or Dungy. Caldwell was awful, and Dungy was a "defensive guru" who could never build a good defense in Indy because the Tampa-2 was a laughably terrible formation that wasted the careers of our defensive players.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Caldwell got to as many Super Bowls in two years with Peyton as Dungy did in seven. Granted he didn't win, but that 09 team was not as talented as the 06 team. Also, the Saints were a much much much much better team than the Bears because they actually had an offense.

                              Caldwell is not my type of coach because I like coaches who show a little bit of fire on the sidelines. That being said, the guy was setup to fail in 2011. Maybe great coaching could have squeezed out another couple of wins, but no one could win with Collins and Painter.

                              Actually three seasons 2009-2011 and while that's true my point is that I think the Colts should've gone in a different direction after Dungy left instead of hiring a lame duck successor in Caldwell.

                              I'm still disgusted with them giving up on the perfect season. That was the beginning of the end of the Manning era at that point we just didn't realize it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tony Dungy: I wouldn't have taken Michael Sam

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                Actually three seasons 2009-2011 and while that's true my point is that I think the Colts should've gone in a different direction after Dungy left instead of hiring a lame duck successor in Caldwell.

                                I'm still disgusted with them giving up on the perfect season. That was the beginning of the end of the Manning era at that point we just didn't realize it.
                                I said two seasons with Peyton. Peyton didn't play in Caldwell's third year.

                                Punting the perfect season made me physically ill at the time, but clearly NaPolian was the one pulling the strings on that one. I completely agree with you that we should have done an outside coaching search after Dungy retired instead of settling for Dungy-lite in Caldwell. Thankfully Irsay seems to have learned that lesson with the solid way he handled the Pagano search. That being said, Caldwell was set up to fail big time in 2011 by the Manning injury and putrid replacement quarterbacks.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X