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

2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

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

  • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...tion-was-prank

    Facebook messages from Teo to a friend where he doubts if this is a hoax. The messages are dated 2010
    ***** Christ that's some sick ****. Sowing the seeds that far in advance. You have to be seriously messed up to put that much effort into being a fake person. I don't think I can really follow this story anymore. I really wanted it to be a coverup for gay love or something with a least a smidgen of humanity. I mean even in a "let's cook up a hot PR story" situation, at least that's just plain old greed and the thirst for fame. It turns my stomach to think about this kind of sick stuff.

    You know even if the NFL thing doesn't work out, there could be a lot of money in book and movie deals for this story.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

      Serious question:

      If this doesnt come out, do you think the dude who pretended to be the GF has her come back from the dead and try to get money from Teo?

      Ok, I just said serious question and then asked if a imaginary person would come back from the dead. And that really happened. I am laughing hard here, and my wife is looking at me like I a bat **** crazy

      Comment


      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
        You have to be seriously messed up to put that much effort into being a fake person. I don't think I can really follow this story anymore. I really wanted it to be a coverup for gay love or something with a least a smidgen of humanity.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

          Manti Te'o hoax continued in Miami


          Manti Te'o was still being hoaxed two nights before the Discover BCS National Championship, a source told "Outside the Lines."

          The Saturday night before the title game, the Notre Dame linebacker said he thought a group of people that had admitted duping him about the death of his Internet girlfriend "Lennay Kekua" was downstairs in the Notre Dame team hotel lobby trying to reach him, according to an interview Te'o did with ESPN.

          However, "Outside the Lines" has learned that the stalking story appears to be just one more hoax that was played on Te'o.
          http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...mi-source-says

          Comment


          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

            Originally posted by billbradley View Post
            Like Since, my girlfriend has dragged me into watching Catfish (but I'll admit I started to at least be kind of interested in the outcomes) and I would say it's not uncommon for a long relationship based only online.

            Think about it, you meet online, you believe it's love, you just stop after a year because you haven't met? I mean, you've gone this far. I think it's crazy that someone could get back with a cheater, but people do it. Why wouldn't you still be in love with someone that is saying maybe they're just afraid to meet you? It's not a betrayal. If you can fall in love with someone you haven't met, it's not out of the question that you could let it drag on for years.
            It's all "possible" I guess, but I just personally have a hard time believing that a superstar college football player would spend years in a relationship where he never actually met the person. I think that virtually any other athlete in his position would use their fame to lure in some attractive co-eds who they could actually see face to face. That's the normal thing to do for a popular college athlete. He could have had his pick of real women to have physical relationships with, yet we're supposed to believe that all he wanted was this woman who he could never actually meet? That just doesn't add up to me at all.

            Until we see some really good evidence that he was duped, I'm going to continue to believe that he was in on the hoax. It's the most simple and logical explanation. So many bizarre things would have to be true for him to have been genuinely duped for all of these years. I'm not buying it.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-21-2013, 11:46 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

              The only thing I could think of is because he is Mormon and maybe he found it easier to follow his lifestyle if he did not have interaction w the young lady.

              Besdies that, I have nothing. And my theory ignores the fact he dated someone else from St. Marys.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                I've held off weighing in on this because I don't have a dog in the hunt, but there is something that people need to realize.

                For all that we active Internet users are savvy and understanding of how social media works, there are still lots of people out there, young and old, who are naive and don't get it. There isn't some automatic conferral of Net-Know-How because someone turns 16 any more than there is some automatic coolness with the preferred sex that comes with puberty. I can fully understand how someone who is awkward in personal relationships and unsophisticated in the ways of Teh Intartubez could not only be drawn in by something like this but have it last for a long period of time (and refuse to believe it is a hoax even when it is pointed out). I spend a LOT of time with family and friends trying to help straighten out similar situations - including some very major scams they get themselves involved in. And these are people with advanced degrees in engineering and other disciplines.

                Whatever the supporting facts may be, discounting a possibility because someone would have to "be pretty stupid" not to catch on is NOT a valid argument.

                For what it is worth, my wife and I knew each other on line (back in the ancient Compuserv days) for over a year and a half before we ever met face-to-face - we've now been married 25 years.
                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: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  It's all "possible" I guess, but I just personally have a hard time believing that a superstar college football player would spend years in a relationship where he never actually met the person. I think that virtually any other athlete in his position would use their fame to lure in some attractive co-eds who they could actually see face to face. That's the normal thing to do for a popular college athlete. He could have had his pick of real women to have physical relationships with, yet we're supposed to believe that all he wanted was this woman who he could never actually meet? That just doesn't add up to me at all.

                  Until we see some really good evidence that he was duped, I'm going to continue to believe that he was in on the hoax. It's the most simple and logical explanation. So many bizarre things would have to be true for him to have been genuinely duped for all of these years. I'm not buying it.
                  And this is why it's so easy to think Te'o got caught up in the lie about seeing her.

                  Could you imagine trying to explain your relationship to people over and over again that have this kind of reaction? Especially in a lockerroom full of 18-22 y/o old males who have one thing on their mind after football.
                  Last edited by Since86; 01-22-2013, 09:22 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I've held off weighing in on this because I don't have a dog in the hunt, but there is something that people need to realize.

                    For all that we active Internet users are savvy and understanding of how social media works, there are still lots of people out there, young and old, who are naive and don't get it. There isn't some automatic conferral of Net-Know-How because someone turns 16 any more than there is some automatic coolness with the preferred sex that comes with puberty. I can fully understand how someone who is awkward in personal relationships and unsophisticated in the ways of Teh Intartubez could not only be drawn in by something like this but have it last for a long period of time (and refuse to believe it is a hoax even when it is pointed out). I spend a LOT of time with family and friends trying to help straighten out similar situations - including some very major scams they get themselves involved in. And these are people with advanced degrees in engineering and other disciplines.

                    Whatever the supporting facts may be, discounting a possibility because someone would have to "be pretty stupid" not to catch on is NOT a valid argument.

                    For what it is worth, my wife and I knew each other on line (back in the ancient Compuserv days) for over a year and a half before we ever met face-to-face - we've now been married 25 years.
                    This is where I stand.

                    I still have doubts due to him never visiting the sick girlfriend. But weirder things have happened I guess

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      And this is why it's so easy to think Te'o got caught up in the lie about seeing her.

                      Could you imagine trying to explain your relationship to people over and over again that have this kind of reaction?
                      Not to mention 99.9% of them (at least the dudes) would question if you played for the other team when they heard that story......come on man, what kinda dude wouldnt bag every hot college chick he sees if you are a star player

                      (TBH, he was a good player but I never remember him being a "highlighted" player before this season)

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                        Te'o was pretty good throughout his entire career. He had 126 tackles last season, and 133 the season prior. He's 11th all time in total tackles, and this season was 3rd best out of his 4yrs for total tackles. 1st all time for the independent teams.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Te'o was pretty good throughout his entire career. He had 126 tackles last season, and 133 the season prior. He's 11th all time in total tackles, and this season was 3rd best out of his 4yrs for total tackles. 1st all time for the independent teams.
                          I know he was good, but I am talking when he became a "superstar"

                          Maybe I just misses it watching the CB's and safetys get burned the last 3 years (and this past year to a bit, though the D line helped a lot with that)

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            And this is why it's so easy to think Te'o got caught up in the lie about seeing her.

                            Could you imagine trying to explain your relationship to people over and over again that have this kind of reaction? Especially in a lockerroom full of 18-22 y/o old males who have one thing on their mind after football.
                            Right, but what I'm saying is that I have a hard time believing that a superstar athlete would get so fixated about some online girlfriend in the first place. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's very hard to believe that a superstar athlete who could have his pick of real women would get so caught up in a girl he couldn't meet for a long period of time. I bet like 99.9% of athletes in his position would spend their time trying to develop relationships with the plethora of real women at their disposal.

                            Who had the most to gain from this fake girl dying a matter of hours after (or was it before?) his grandmother? Te'o clearly had the most to gain from the fake story.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              It's all "possible" I guess, but I just personally have a hard time believing that a superstar college football player would spend years in a relationship where he never actually met the person. I think that virtually any other athlete in his position would use their fame to lure in some attractive co-eds who they could actually see face to face. That's the normal thing to do for a popular college athlete. He could have had his pick of real women to have physical relationships with, yet we're supposed to believe that all he wanted was this woman who he could never actually meet? That just doesn't add up to me at all.

                              Until we see some really good evidence that he was duped, I'm going to continue to believe that he was in on the hoax. It's the most simple and logical explanation. So many bizarre things would have to be true for him to have been genuinely duped for all of these years. I'm not buying it.
                              But what's normal for a Mormon athlete? Wouldn't an online relationship actually be more comfortable and appealing if you wanted to be celibate as a college star as there would be guaranteed more pressure meeting "normal" campus women?

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012 Notre Dame Football Thread

                                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                                But what's normal for a Mormon athlete? Wouldn't an online relationship actually be more comfortable and appealing if you wanted to be celibate as a college star as there would be guaranteed more pressure meeting "normal" campus women?
                                Maybe. Like I said, I'm not saying that it's impossible. Still, it's very very hard to believe to me. Also, don't forget that he allegedly did have a real girlfriend who was absolutely beautiful. If this Alexandra Del Pillar was in fact his real girlfriend, then clearly Te'o had the ability to lure in attractive women and was not afraid to do so.

                                http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...lVkCNn02bs81sO

                                All of the things which would have to be true for him to have genuinely been hoaxed for all of this time just seem so implausible to me. And Te'o is obviously the one who had the most to gain from the hoax (assuming no one ever found out about it, of course).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X