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

Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

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

  • Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    BOSTON - Patriots coach Bill Belichick broke his silence on New England’s twin taping controversies, denying he told anyone to tape the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough before the 2002 Super Bowl and apologizing for all the attention generated by Spygate.

    Belichick also told the Boston Globe he “couldn’t pick Matt Walsh out of a lineup.” Walsh, a former Patriots employee, reportedly taped St. Louis’ walkthrough practice the day before the Patriots beat the Rams 20-17 in the championship.

    “In my entire coaching career, I’ve never seen another team’s practice film prior to playing that team,” Belichick said in a story posted on the Globe’s Web site Sunday night. “I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team’s walkthrough. We don’t even film our own.”

    Patriots vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli also told the newspaper that part of the reason Walsh was fired in January 2003 was because he secretly recorded conversations between himself and Pioli.

    Michael Levy, Walsh’s attorney, said Pioli’s account was a “complete fabrication.”

    “This is a predictable and pathetic effort to smear Mr. Walsh’s character rather than confront the truth about the Patriots’ conduct,” Levy said in the Globe story.

    Levy has said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

    Commissioner Roger Goodell has said he offered Walsh a deal requiring him “to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly” in return for indemnity, but Levy has said the deal doesn’t go far enough.

    Goodell fined Belichick $500,000, the Patriots $250,000 and took away a first-round draft choice after the Patriots were caught taping New York Jets’ coaches in last year’s season opener, a 38-14 New England victory.

    Belichick said he misinterpreted the rule, which he felt only prohibited taping that could be used during the same game.

    He also apologized for the controversy the taping caused.

    “I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will,” he said in the Globe story. “I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent, it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and we’re not doing it.

    “Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I’m sure they would have told me — as they have done — that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.

    “I take responsibility for it,” he said. “Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we’ve been penalized for it. I apologize to everybody that is involved — the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it’s caused.”

    The day before the Patriots’ 17-14 loss to the New York Giants in this year’s Super Bowl, the Boston Herald reported New England taped St. Louis’ walkthrough before the first of the Patriots’ three Super Bowl victories. In a walkthrough, teams practice plays at a slower pace than normal without pads or helmets.

    Patriots spokesman Stacey James did not return phone calls or an e-mail seeking comment Sunday night.
    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23216255/


    ESPN Article:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3251081

    Boston Globe(Original article):
    http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...oli_speak_out/

    I think Belichick actually talking about this is LONG overdue. If he had said this 5 months ago, I don't think it would have been as big as it currently is. Needless to say, I hope they sort everything out quickly so we can put this behind us once and for all.

  • #2
    Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Is this the first time we've heard this?


    "Levy has said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action."

    So now they are confirming that Walsh does have video tape evidence.

    I wouldn't return it if I were him either. I'd be calling Senator Spector and sending him copies of the tapes.

    And if Goodell wants to keep his name clean in all of this he better offer the same. Otherwise it stinks of a big cover-up.

    And I would also guess if Walsh was taping conversations with Pioli, Walsh must have thought there was something worthy of taping that may come in handy later that the Patriots wouldn't want the public to know. I bet those could be interesting tapes as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

      And you're right, its long overdue for Belichick to come out and talk about it.

      For his sake, he better hope that Walsh is full of crap and doesn't really have what he claims to have.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

        I thought this was interesting seeing how we know it's a direct lie because a LEAGUE wide memo was sent out.



        “I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will,” he said in the Globe story. “I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent, it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and we’re not doing it.

        Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I’m sure they would have told me — as they have done — that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.
        The league contacted you buddy. The league contacted every team.

        Quit the freaking excuses and man-up. You illegally taped the opposing team to get an advantage and were caught multiple times by different teams. Teams knew you did it and decided not to turn you in. If they can remove your camera then obviously it was against the rules.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

          The USA Today story said he apologized. Sorry, I happened to miss that part.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

            "Now, I have to go back to work on my draft preparation. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not videotape that team, St. Louis. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

              Originally posted by ABADays View Post
              The USA Today story said he apologized. Sorry, I happened to miss that part.
              Perhaps you should reread the article?

              "I apologize to everybody that is involved — the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it’s caused.”

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                1) Why is Belichick just now speaking out on this?
                2) Why has Walsh not shown his evidence to the senator?
                3) Why do teams tape other teams if they have no intention of ever using the tapes?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                  Originally posted by btowncolt View Post
                  "Now, I have to go back to work on my draft preparation. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not videotape that team, St. Louis. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
                  Where the hell have YOU been?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                    Originally posted by Shade View Post
                    Where the hell have YOU been?
                    School. Killing mice. Sobbing occasionally.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      1) Why is Belichick just now speaking out on this?
                      2) Why has Walsh not shown his evidence to the senator?
                      3) Why do teams tape other teams if they have no intention of ever using the tapes?
                      My personal speculation:
                      1) He said that he didn't want to get his focus off of winning football games..and that sounds like classic Belichick to me so I can at least give him that.

                      2) Walsh hasn't shown the evidence because he either doesn't have it, or if he does, he is still awaiting legal protection because he knows he violated his contract by stealing property from the Pats. Not to mention, if what Pioli says is true regarding him recording personal conversations, I'm betting he could get into quite a bit of trouble.

                      3) You've got me. Many ex-players, coaches, and even the Steelers organization have come out and said that the tapes have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the game..but if they don't, then why did the Pats do it? My guess is that it gives a minor advantage in some instances..but sometimes it could cause more harm then good. The risk/reward ratio there isn't favorable for any team who is trying to steal signals which is why it annoys me that the Pats did it.

                      That is all in regards to stealing signals. Taping a walk through is much more significant in my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                        The one thing that realy bugs me is that if Goodell really wanted to get to the bottom of this and prove that the Pats did nothing, he wouldn't put all the conditions on Matt Walsh bringing the stuff in. If he truly wanted to get to the bottom of it, he would ensure nothing be held against Walsh bring the guy in and see what he's got. But instead he puts conditions on getting the evidence and essentially threatens the guy. Thats whats really fishy about the way Goodell is treating this.

                        The conspriacy theroist in me says Goodell knows something that he doesn't want out to the public and is doing his damnedest to discredit walsh before he ever ponies up the evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                          Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                          The one thing that really bugs me is that if Goodell really wanted to get to the bottom of this and prove that the Pats did nothing, he wouldn't put all the conditions on Matt Walsh bringing the stuff in.
                          According to the NFL, the main condition that Walsh won't accept is that his immunity is dropped if he is proven to be lying.

                          Don't expect that to be resolved, if it is the issue. Telling the truth should be the ONE thing you MUST do to get any protection.

                          I have a feeling that the REAL hang-up, unspoken by either side, is that the NFL wants clauses in the agreement that preclude him from making a living off of this and keeping it in the news for years: No books, no further interviews on Sixty Minutes, no ESPN movie, no Larry King Live, no mini-series, basically no dollars flowing into the pockets of Mr. Walsh.

                          Mr. Walsh is presumably strongly in favor of dollars streaming into his pockets.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                            Originally posted by Moses View Post
                            3) You've got me. Many ex-players, coaches, and even the Steelers organization have come out and said that the tapes have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the game..but if they don't, then why did the Pats do it? My guess is that it gives a minor advantage in some instances..but sometimes it could cause more harm then good. The risk/reward ratio there isn't favorable for any team who is trying to steal signals which is why it annoys me that the Pats did it.

                            That is all in regards to stealing signals. Taping a walk through is much more significant in my mind.
                            If it doesn't help, then why do it? Then why have a rule in place not allowing you to do it?

                            Common sense is a wonderful thing.

                            It makes a lot more sense that a team would benefit from taping the other teams signals, if they were willing to do it knowing it was against league rules.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                              I think the fact that the Patriots were doing this so openly, with a guy standing on the sidelines holding some huge 20-year-old camera, is telling.

                              They were fully aware that the other team would usually KNOW that they were being taped. The purpose would be to annoy and distract the other team, to force them to change their signals more often than they normally would anyway (even in-game), wasting time and possibly resulting in miscommunication.

                              Why do it, for such a small gain? They didn't think the NFL would enforce a rule it had never enforced before, that they considered minor, that they has seen other coaches use against them, a rule that the coach (stupidly) misinterpreted anyway, a coach who also ignored the 2006 memo clarifying the rule.

                              Besides the annoyance/make them waste time/make them make a mistake angle,

                              Since everybody changes their signals game-to-game anyway, the chance of linking a signal to a particular play and having the signal be UNCHANGED in a later game seems remote.

                              So if "stealing play calls" is out, there are still other types of information you could find out, tendencies such as:

                              1) do they send in play calls late, in response to offensive personnel/ formation, or early?

                              2) do they always call in different plays in response to something the offense does, like having a player going in motion?
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X