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

World Cup 2014

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

  • #46
    Re: World Cup 2014

    2014 is better. 2010 was given a free pass to the quarters and blew it. If Gooch and Davies never got hurt, then I'd say 2010.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: World Cup 2014

      Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
      I should clarify that while I disagree with the Landon move (especially for set piece emphasis), I do like Klinsy a lot. I think Gulati finally installed someone who gets the BIGGER picture of US soccer. You can really see it at the youth level these days, too. US is finally, finally installing academy systems and organizing youth development. Now -- is there still room to grow? Yes. Cutting out the MLS Super Draft and figuring out a MLS youth system would do wonders. But they've at least taken the first steps of better developing players even at the 10-14 year old level, and I can see the results from training kids at a re-tooled club myself...there are more kids who are just ridiculously good and technically sound these days, than ever before.
      Oh I love Klinnsman but he's capable of screwing up as much as the next guy. Overall he's been a huge positive for US Soccer though.


      Comment


      • #48
        Re: World Cup 2014

        I think people are making a bigger deal about leaving off Donovan than it really should be. Not that he didn't deserve to make the team, but I think we will be fine without him. I am more worried about getting Altidore playing up to his potential, he always seems to be right on the cusp of being a great player, but never quite crosses the line.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: World Cup 2014

          I see your friendly today is in Jacksonville against Nigeria. Did your federation choose the right location in terms of people showing up? Won't be like the Jaguars' attendance, right?

          Do they split up the locations during the friendly matches before the WC (and not only then) or are there standard few venues?


          PS: Loved Bradley's chip pass against Turkey. Excellent pass, lovely finish.
          Never forget

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: World Cup 2014

            Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
            I see your friendly today is in Jacksonville against Nigeria. Did your federation choose the right location in terms of people showing up? Won't be like the Jaguars' attendance, right?

            Do they split up the locations during the friendly matches before the WC (and not only then) or are there standard few venues?


            PS: Loved Bradley's chip pass against Turkey. Excellent pass, lovely finish.
            They chose that place to help hype up the new NASL team that will be located in Jacksonville next season. They did something similar in Indy last year with Chelsea and Milan.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: World Cup 2014

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              They chose that place to help hype up the new NASL team that will be located in Jacksonville next season. They did something similar in Indy last year with Chelsea and Milan.
              And, hey, the attendance can't be any worse than San Francisco...

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: World Cup 2014

                Jozy scores!!! Good for him
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: World Cup 2014

                  I'm tipping Brazil to win it. Climate, atmosphere, refs will all be in their favour.

                  If not them, then Argentina. I can't see a European team winning it in South America.

                  By the way, anyone notice how feisty the friendlies have been? Honduras have just had a player sent off v England (should have been another one too), two sent off in the earlier friendly between England and Ecuador, a Costa Rican was sent off for elbowing Kevin Doyle in the head v Ireland last night too.
                  https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                  Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: World Cup 2014

                    2 for Jozy. That was a gorgeous strike. Guess who's back
                    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: World Cup 2014

                      Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                      2 for Jozy. That was a gorgeous strike. Guess who's back
                      He was awful this season with Sunderland.
                      https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                      Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: World Cup 2014

                        This team looks extremely fit. Bradley played the full 93 today and didn't tire a bit. The build up is fantastic. We missed a couple finishing chances and still gave up a dumb play late for a penatly goal, but this team looks ready to go. Extremely encouraging signs IMO. Bradley, Dempsey, Altidore all looked world class and we need them to be at that level. (Except dempsey will still never have a reliable first touch it seems LOL)


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: World Cup 2014

                          Originally posted by IrishPacer View Post
                          He was awful this season with Sunderland.
                          Because Sunderland sucks


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: World Cup 2014

                            I will temper everything with the fact that Nigeria gave a pitiful defensive performance. Didn't even try to get back. That won't happen in the World Cup.

                            But yes, I was impressed overall. If Gonzalez never enters the game (note: Brooks is the CB 3, no questions asked now), it's a shutout where Nigeria maybe got a half-chance at best, at one point.

                            Imagine we'll see the same starting XI vs Ghana, but still curious about Bedoya. His defensive workrate lets him work in that formation, but I also feel like, if you're going to likely rely on set pieces to score, you have to have one of Zusi or Davis out there. So curious to see what Klinsy decides.

                            Beckerman is dreadful going forward, but I love that he and Jones allow Bradley to go full Bradley. And that's a beautiful thing to see. Bradley has world class technical skills, honestly. It's just a lack of elite athleticism that keeps him from being a true world class player.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: World Cup 2014

                              Agreed on all counts. This was an impressive performance. 2 things:

                              1. The goal at the end occurred because we put in a million subs and messed with the teamwork that had already been built up. Not a huge deal for me
                              2. The nice idea about having Jones and Becks together is that not only does it allow Bradley to constantly attack, but it also allows Jones to move up a little as well when needed during attack, which he feels comfortable with.

                              What was really interesting was how we switched from attack to defense and back again. On attack we pushed up and it sort of looked like the diamond, but on the way back to defense it collapsed and there was always 2-3 people around the ball. It was a great tactical decision by Klinsy and allowed us to stay compact and defensive while allowing our best players to attack the goal. I really hope this is what we go with because it worked really well.

                              Also, Beasley should start, he did a really good job. And Bedoya has to do a better job on entry passes, he was pretty poor at times.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: World Cup 2014

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Because Sunderland sucks
                                They suck*, and yep, that they do.

                                I'm a Newcastle fan, so I would say that anyway. F#ck Sunderland.
                                https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                                Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X