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

2014 Non-Colts Thread

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

  • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    The Man, The Myth, The Legend, The Kyle Orton has retired. Again. The next 5th of Jack Daniels I bubble will be dedicated to you Neckbeard.

    That's a good thing for Buffalo really, forces them to make a move for a QB now. That's a damn good team otherwise. Bet a 716 area code will be calling up Cutler.
    I would take Orton over Cutler and wouldn't give it a second thought.

    Comment


    • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

      Jets owner Woody Johnson guilty of "textbook" tampering with possible NE free agent Darrelle Revis:

      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...arrelle-revis/

      Johnson did this same type of thing earlier this year, making comments about DeSean Jackson just before he was made a free agent. The NFL reprimanded him at the time and reiterated to him the NFL rules with respect to tampering.

      http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/201...ng_policy.html

      In the past, blatant tampering violations have been punished by the team doing the tampering losing a late round draft pick and also being forced to swap picks in an earlier round (3RD, 4TH, OR 5TH) with the offended team.

      NEW YORK -- The San Francisco 49ers forfeited their fifth-round pick in next month's NFL draft after commissioner Roger Goodell said they tampered with Chicago linebacker Lance Briggs. In a statement released by the league Monday, Goodell also said the teams will switch picks in the third round of the April 26-27 draft. Chicago, which had the 12th pick, will get San Francisco's seventh pick and the 49ers will get Chicago's choice. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3310056
      Couple years back: "the league has nailed the Lions for tampering with Chiefs players. The Lions will lose a seventh-round pick acquired from the Broncos in 2011, and the Chiefs and Lions will swap fifth-round picks."

      Johnson has now made clear that he is a suitor for Revis, and that has real and serious implications for the Patriots negotiations with him. Revis is coming into an option year. Johnson said 1.That they (the Jets) have money to spend; and 2. that they would like to have Revis back. If that is not blatant tampering, then I don't know what is.

      The Patriots should push for full punishment as hard as they possibly can, especially since this is a REPEAT offense.

      Any public or private statement of interest, qualified or unqualified, in another club's player or that player's agent or representative, or to a member of the news media, is a violation of this Anti-Tampering Policy. (Example of a prohibited comment: “He’s an excellent player, and we’d very much like to have him if he were available, but another club holds his rights.”)
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-29-2014, 04:47 PM.
      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


      • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

        Jets are just such a sleazy organization.

        Comment


        • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

          Originally posted by presto123 View Post
          NFL is too tolerant on this issue. One game is a joke for this kind of behavior.
          Its the playoffs if the Lions lose vs Dallas it really won't matter at that point. Their season is over.

          Comment


          • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

            Orton just retired haha. Blew off the press.

            http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/12/kyle...-buffalo-bills

            Comment


            • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              Its the playoffs if the Lions lose vs Dallas it really won't matter at that point. Their season is over.
              What's your point? If he got suspended say 5 games it would carry into next year(or should) or the remaining playoff games if they win.

              Comment


              • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                Now apparently Suh is playing. The NFL's discipline policy has to be the biggest joke around.

                Comment


                • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                  Apparently, after 32 games without an incident, it is treated as though it were a first offense.

                  Suh made it exactly 32 games.

                  What a ****ing joke.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                    Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                    What's your point? If he got suspended say 5 games it would carry into next year(or should) or the remaining playoff games if they win.


                    Except that's not how it works.

                    If you wanted him suspended for the first 5 games of the year next season they would have to do it next season not now.

                    Regardless I shouldn't be surprised it was overturned considering its the playoffs. Its not like Raiola where he got suspended in the season finale of the regular season.

                    If the Lions lose well it won't matter is my guess as to why they overturned it.

                    Romo better be careful though.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                      That was hardly a stomp. Obviously with his reputation, there's a good chance that he totally did that on purpose, but I just watched the video and he took a step back, and then began to walk forward. I'm not surprised it was overturned

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                        I'm sorry, I laughed out loud as I read this:

                        Suh's defense: Feet were numb

                        Detroit Lions defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh, during an appeal of his one-game suspension for twice stepping on Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, said his feet were numb from the cold, a source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Wednesday.
                        http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014...were-numb-cold

                        _______________________

                        In a letter to Suh explaining the decision to allow Suh to play on Sunday but fine him $70,000, Cottrell makes clear that he believes Suh knew he was standing on Rodgers’s leg.

                        “Although I accept that your feet may have been cold on a late December day in Green Bay, it is difficult for me to believe that you did not feel Aaron Rodgers’ leg under you as you stepped on him twice,” Cottrell wrote. “While you may not have consciously intended to cause injury to the opposing player that you stepped on, I nonetheless believe that you could have avoided—and had the responsibility to avoid—making such dangerous contact with your opponent’s leg—twice. Your conduct was a clear violation of the Playing Rules and was outside the normal course of the game of football. It must be emphasized that illegal acts that jeopardize the safety of other players, as was certainly the case here, will not be tolerated in this League.”

                        So why did Cottrell overturn the suspension? Because he was swayed not only by speaking directly to Suh but by hearing from Suh’s representatives and from the Lions, who felt that the entire franchise would be punished if one of its best players was barred from a playoff game.

                        “Several of your representatives, including personnel from the Lions, argued that the impact of your suspension would have a devastating effect on you, your teammates and coaches, as well as Lions fans,” Cottrell wrote.

                        “I think you were sincere when you said that you respect the game, and have listened to the advice of your coaches, as well as that of Troy Vincent during his visit with you in the offseason,” Cottrell wrote. “Based on your representations, I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt that you did not intend to injure your opponent. However, the seriousness of this offense, the potential for injury, and my conclusion that it was avoidable, demands substantial discipline. For those reasons, I am reducing your one game suspension without pay to a fine in the amount of $70,000.”



                        So part of the reason his suspension was overturned was because it is not fair to his team. Perhaps I am just slow, but isn't that kind of the point of a suspension? Its not supposed to be on your terms, when things work out well for you.....

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                          The article was updated, and I found this exchange interesting:

                          Greg Aiello ✔ @gregaiello
                          Follow
                          .@hblodget No. Mr. Suh didn't win his appeal. Ted Cottrell did not accept the excuse. He decided the apropriate discipline was a $70K fine.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                            It's quite obvious Suh did it on purpose. He put pressure on the leg adter it was obvious his foot was no longer on the turf, he pulled this after exactly 32 games, and he wouldn't make a statement regarding whether or not it was intentional.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                              I want Rex Ryan as our next DC. Strike that, I want him to take over for Hazell in 2 years. Seriously, I think Rex would recruit like a damn MONSTER.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                I want Rex Ryan as our next DC. Strike that, I want him to take over for Hazell in 2 years. Seriously, I think Rex would recruit like a damn MONSTER.
                                Rex will stay in the NFL. When was the last time a big time NFL coach went back to the NCAA, especially the Big Ten nevertheless?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X