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

Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

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

  • #16
    Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

    While it bothers me that RGIII or any other athlete cannot wear what they want...I suspect he signed a contract with the NFL and that was one of the terms. Only because of this reason would I side with the NFL. Honestly, I don't like the idea of the NFL controlling the cash like that. But I suppose it is their league. Kind of mixed emotions here...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      While it bothers me that RGIII or any other athlete cannot wear what they want...I suspect he signed a contract with the NFL and that was one of the terms. Only because of this reason would I side with the NFL. Honestly, I don't like the idea of the NFL controlling the cash like that. But I suppose it is their league. Kind of mixed emotions here...
      That's not how it works though. Nike pays the NFL millions of millions of dollars to be the official apparel of the NFL. Other sponsors pay millions of dollars every year. The tv deals for CBS, FOX, and NBC alone pay the NFL $3 billion dollars a year to show these games because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars for ads.

      The point is, without these ads and sponsors, the NFL isn't as profitable, the teams aren't as valuable, the owners aren't as rich, and as the trickle down continues, the players don't make as much either.

      The RG3 thing is pretty silly but it's accomplishing one thing, it's getting the Adidas brand talked about and bringing the RG3-Adidas connection together. Think about it, can anyone name Peyton's shoe deal? Tom Brady? Peterson, Rodgers, Vick, etc? Right now a lot of people can put RG3 and Adidas together, and in two months most people will have forgotten it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

        And this is just silly because I seriously doubt RG3 is getting paid even a dollar more money by Adidas to stick it to Nike and stick it to the NFL. Even the fact that the Adidas brand is being talked about more because of the shenanigans, it still doesn't even move the needle of generating more awareness or sales because we're talking about a multi-billion dollar corporation. And heck, most fans of RG3 are likely buying his Nike jersey rather than an Adidas tshirt.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

          Originally posted by bunt View Post
          That's not how it works though. Nike pays the NFL millions of millions of dollars to be the official apparel of the NFL. Other sponsors pay millions of dollars every year. The tv deals for CBS, FOX, and NBC alone pay the NFL $3 billion dollars a year to show these games because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars for ads.

          The point is, without these ads and sponsors, the NFL isn't as profitable, the teams aren't as valuable, the owners aren't as rich, and as the trickle down continues, the players don't make as much either.

          The RG3 thing is pretty silly but it's accomplishing one thing, it's getting the Adidas brand talked about and bringing the RG3-Adidas connection together. Think about it, can anyone name Peyton's shoe deal? Tom Brady? Peterson, Rodgers, Vick, etc? Right now a lot of people can put RG3 and Adidas together, and in two months most people will have forgotten it.
          That's not the issue. The issue is whether RGIII signed an agreement and breached it. If he didn't breach an agreement with the NBA, they wouldn't be able to fine him and get away with it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            That's not the issue. The issue is whether RGIII signed an agreement and breached it. If he didn't breach an agreement with the NBA, they wouldn't be able to fine him and get away with it.
            Thank you, and I assume you mean the NFL, but ya, exactly. Which is what I've been getting at. I don't know the agreement, but for them to be able to fine him, he's likely signed a contract. So he's out there just throwing plugs for Adidas and taking the fines. I'm sorry, but I don't see guys get fined for htis often, so to assume that "it happens all the time" is likely not true. I'm not about to go look it up because I really don't care that much, but if someone wants to enlighten me otherwise, feel free.

            Either way, it still shows me he's all about the $$$. Can roll your eyes all ya want; doesn't make it any less true.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

              Still an ignorant comment. Especially if we dont know if Adidas is paying him more to do so.

              Of course, what you say is fact, right? How dare anyone contradict your holy opinion. Insert as many eye rolls here as you want

              There used to be a NFL thread on Extremeskins.com that tracked every fine for unathorized apparel. I will give you a hint, RG3 was not the only one on it (he was actually in HS when that thread was created)

              I remember Stephen Davis getting fined for wearing the wrong sock colors, other guys for wearing the wrong gloves, wearing hats that were not approved, among other things.

              But please continue to tell us how RG only cares about the money.

              Comment


              • #22
                I'm not getting overly belligerent about this as you are. Not sure "holier than thou" and ignorant are really great responses to what I said. And wearing a different sock color is completely different than blatantly plugging your sponsor and violating a league policy multiple times.

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                Still an ignorant comment. Especially if we dont know if Adidas is paying him more to do so.
                Are you saying it's okay to break policy if he's getting paid more money by his sponsor to break the policy??? That would only further PROVE he's 'bout the $$$!

                Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-22-2012, 12:00 PM.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  That's not the issue. The issue is whether RGIII signed an agreement and breached it. If he didn't breach an agreement with the NBA, they wouldn't be able to fine him and get away with it.
                  Well that's not even an issue. Of course the players all agree to in their contracts to wear the apparel of whatever company the NFL decides. This isn't the NBA dress code where players can decide to wear Armani suits or Brooks Brothers or whatever.

                  And the point of my post is exactly the issue: Nike isn't paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the NFL if the biggest stars are allowed to wear whatever they want to post game news conferences or on the field during warmups or the game.

                  There's a reason why when the NFL switched from Reebok to Nike, you didn't see some teams still running around in Reebok.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Are you saying it's okay to break policy if he's getting paid more money by his sponsor to break the policy??? That would only further PROVE he's 'bout the $$$!

                    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                    And of course it's about the money, and saying that doesn't make it a bad thing or denigrates RG3 in anyway. Yeah all of these players play the game for the love of the game, but they also get a pretty nice paycheck to go along with it. Do people not think Peyton's doing all those commercials because of the money?? Because he is and there's nothing wrong with it.

                    As far as RG3, I seriously doubt he's getting paid anything extra from Adidas. The amount of publicity this gets before it goes away will barely make a dent in the revenue of Adidas. RG3 is doing this as another way to get his name out there, his brand out there(not Adidas), all the while he can claim it as loyalty to his sponsor. Because if he didn't go out of his way to cover of the swoosh, 99% of people wouldn't even notice anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                      Nonsense. RG3 is the only pro athlete who is about "dat money".

                      Which we know he only cares about "dat money" because he broke a rule many players have broke. I mean Jordan only stopped back in the day because the NBA threatened to suspend him one game per incident
                      Last edited by vapacersfan; 12-22-2012, 12:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I'm not getting overly belligerent about this as you are. Not sure "holier than thou" and ignorant are really great responses to what I said. And wearing a different sock color is completely different than blatantly plugging your sponsor and violating a league policy multiple times.



                        Are you saying it's okay to break policy if he's getting paid more money by his sponsor to break the policy??? That would only further PROVE he's 'bout the $$$!

                        Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
                        no. Your the only one saying he only cares about "dat money". Therefore implying he is getting more to wear adidas over nike.

                        And actually, along with te color codes i know other guys have been fied for not wearing reebok or whoever the sposor was back then

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                          Originally posted by bunt View Post
                          Well that's not even an issue. Of course the players all agree to in their contracts to wear the apparel of whatever company the NFL decides. This isn't the NBA dress code where players can decide to wear Armani suits or Brooks Brothers or whatever.

                          And the point of my post is exactly the issue: Nike isn't paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the NFL if the biggest stars are allowed to wear whatever they want to post game news conferences or on the field during warmups or the game.

                          There's a reason why when the NFL switched from Reebok to Nike, you didn't see some teams still running around in Reebok.
                          I have a thorough understanding of contract law. It doesn't matter if Nike paid the NFL a trillion dollars. If the NFL doesn't have an agreement with RGIII barring him from wearing non-Nike apparel, he can wear whatever he pleases and they cannot fine him.

                          But the fact is, they can fine him so they have an agreement that RGIII signed and therefore should be adhering to. This is nothing more than business and RGIII is breaching an agreement...and the NFL is exercising its legal right to fine him.

                          Edit: The real point has nothing to do with the amount of money Nike is giving the NFL. If the NFL simply wanted all its players to wear Nike for its image, they could put that clause in the contract with a penalty for breach. That's the only thing at issue here. RGIII chose to breach a contract with the NFL and there was a penalty clause they exercised. Nothing more to it.
                          Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-22-2012, 06:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                            no. Your the only one saying he only cares about "dat money". Therefore implying he is getting more to wear adidas over nike.

                            And actually, along with te color codes i know other guys have been fied for not wearing reebok or whoever the sposor was back then
                            Most care about "dat money", so RGIII is no different. Also, there's nothing wrong with breaching a contract. If he in fact makes more money wearing Adidas...which may be true since he breached, good for him. If the NFL wanted to stop him from doing that, they should have written something else harsher into the contract. For example, expulsion from the league. This stuff really isn't all that hard.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                              I miss contract law.

                              I still dread those "When is the contract technically enforced" if it is sent by party A at 5:01 via fax and received by party 5 via fax at 5:54

                              That was back when I wanted to be a sports agent and I dreamed of contract law. I was never normal

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Griffin 3 Fined 10 Grr for "Unauthorized Apparel"

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I have a thorough understanding of contract law. It doesn't matter if Nike paid the NFL a trillion dollars. If the NFL doesn't have an agreement with RGIII barring him from wearing non-Nike apparel, he can wear whatever he pleases and they cannot fine him.

                                But the fact is, they can fine him so they have an agreement that RGIII signed and therefore should be adhering to. This is nothing more than business and RGIII is breaching an agreement...and the NFL is exercising its legal right to fine him.

                                Edit: The real point has nothing to do with the amount of money Nike is giving the NFL. If the NFL simply wanted all its players to wear Nike for its image, they could put that clause in the contract with a penalty for breach. That's the only thing at issue here. RGIII chose to breach a contract with the NFL and there was a penalty clause they exercised. Nothing more to it.
                                I agree with this completely. My only point was whichever posters were questioning if in fact there was something in the players' contracts regarding this. I didn't have an actual contract to point to or an article spelling it out as a source, hence my "proof" being the millions of dollars Nike pays the NFL. There's obviously repercussions players face whether its covering up the swoosh or a player wearing orange gloves. And it's up to the NFL to decide when and how to punish.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X