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

Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

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

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

    It's not a court of law, its a business. The business has set it's parameters as "probably", hence the language that satisfies the requirement.

    Just on a side note, why all the lying if something wasn't going on. I didn't go in a bathroom, oh, I did but I had to go pee... although no urinal in the bathroom. Brady had no idea who McNary was or what he did? Brady surprised as everyone, when he chewed on the ball guys in October?

    The whole Kush act, I just want to play football Jerry, is so funny.

    Man up, take your medicine and move on. Kraft is willing to, so should Brady.

    Lasty, funny how "scientist" can disagree on what happened.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      50.1% sure and 49.9% unsure
      Occam's razor - The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
      #LanceEffect

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
        ^^^Is this acceptable?

        It's pretty sad that you cannot refute a single word of what I posted. Instead you resort to profanity.
        To be fair it's hard to refute made up science.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

          Brady's agent's comments are pretty funny:

          This suggests it may be more probable than not that the league cooperated with the Colts in perpetrating a sting operation.

          http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-wells-report/

          Wikipedia defines a sting operation as the following. I don't think anyone would disagree with this definition:

          In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation

          Even if the agent's paranoid theory were somehow true, does he understand that there is nothing to "sting" in a "sting operation" unless someone is doing something sinister? His sting operation theory is pretty much admitting that Brady/the Pats were doing something bad.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

            Damn Sollozzo -- you beat me to it.

            Like a hooker complaining that she asked if he was a cop - and he said NO.

            Hilarious.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              Other evidence such as the text messages paint a clouded picture,

              Lay off the drugs man.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post


                5) The drop in pressure of the Colts footballs is thus inconsistent with the valid scientific prediction that footballs will lose 1.13 psi in pressure, just due to the temperature drop.


                6) For some reason, the fact that the Colts footballs apparently did not obey the laws of physics has not, to this point, concerned anyone. It should. But it is easy to explain! The officials didn't even have time to test all of the Colts footballs because the 13-minute halftime was ending. The Colts footballs had been in the heated room for at least 10 minutes before they were ever tested. They warmed up, maybe halfway to room temperature, which would explain a measurement of about half of the drop that was expected: 1.13/2 = 0.515.


                7) The Colts partly warmed-up footballs were used as the "control" for the earlier-analyzed Patriots footballs. A huge degree of importance was placed into the fact that the difference in the drop in pressure of the Colts footballs vs. the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs was statistically significant. The difference in the order in which the two groups of footballs were analyzed, as they were of course warming up toward room temperature, could fully account for this statistical significance, however.


                8) The most puzzling evidence is the relatively higher variability of the Patriots footballs. That looks suspicious. But other possible explanations, such as that perhaps some footballs were used in a heavy downpour and some were not used at all, were never considered. They did not consider the "wet football factor" at all, for that matter.
                Slick, there is definitely one flaw I am seeing in your analysis. You are assuming that all the Patriots balls were tested instantaneously upon entering the warm environment. But the report doesn't say that. From page 70:

                Based on the information provided by various witnesses to the halftimemeasurements, we believe that it took approximately two to four minutes after the balls werereturned to the Officials Locker Room to devise, organize and begin implementing the testingprotocol. Based on information provided from Blakeman and Prioleau in particular, we estimatethat it took approximately four to five minutes to test the pressure of the eleven Patriots balls.The testing of the four Colts balls took less time. Inflation of the Patriots balls and resettingthem within the permissible pressure range is estimated to have taken approximately two to fiveminutes.
                So the last Patriots ball tested had been in the locker room for at least 6 minutes. It's unclear which one they did next. The report seems to imply they did the Colts balls next which makes sense. They tested 4 balls, realized as the report states that "time was running short", and proceed to stop testing the Colts balls and move onto reinflating the ones for the Patriots. That took a defined amount of time, too much time in fact which is why there was an on field delay for the 2nd half. If they reinflated the Patriots balls first and then were watching the clock while testing the Colts balls, it makes less sense on why the delay in getting the balls to the field.

                Even if you assume the other way though, that the Patriots balls were tested first, then they reinflated those, then they moved onto the Colts balls, you still have to give some credit for the fact that the Patriots balls were in the heated room for awhile as well. Taking the assumptions as best we can for the Patriots, the Patriots first ball would have been tested 2 minutes in and the last ball was tested approximately 6 minutes in. The Colts ball would have been tested about 11 minutes in and the last ball would have been tested at around the 13 minute mark (the balls left the officials locker room after 13 minutes 30 seconds had passed).

                So even in the best assumptions for the Patriots in this scenario, the average Patriots ball was tested around the 4 minute mark and the average Colts ball was tested around the 12 minute mark. If there's a difference of about .515 for the Colts ball because of warming, then the Patriots would be .172 higher than they were on the field. And if you move those assumptions around, the differences become a whole lot closer.

                Plus, if you look at the order of the measurements, the rapid heating scenario doesn't make much sense. The numbers are all over the place as you go from ball to ball and the end has some of the lowest measurements of the sample.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                  I don't have to refute squat. The report says it all.
                  Every word I wrote was based on the report.

                  EVERY WORD.

                  But I won't tell you to STFU
                  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: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                    What do you have to say about The DEFLATOR ??

                    And Brady talking to the guy 3 time in 3 days after the game after not having communicated with him in 6 months ??

                    And Brady denying that he knew the guy at all ??

                    And - I could go on, but at this point it's just not worth the effort. I know it. Brady knows it. THE DEFLATOR knows it. Everyone knows. Get on board.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                      Does Goodell have the balls to suspend Brady for the upcoming season because that is the only fair penalty? Guys are suspended indefinitely for personal issues that do not effect the game at all and rightly should be left to the civil courts; guys are suspended for drugs that are legal in some states but not in the nfl; Brady's offense calls into question his whole career and affects the integrity of the game. It will be interesting to see if the QB of the SB team is going to be hit with a real penalty. I'm guessing Goodell doesn't mess with Boston royalty.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                        Call yourself "the deflator" 6 months before anyone had any idea about deflating the footballs.
                        +Say you want kickbacks
                        +Routinely talk about PSI level
                        +Be told someone has a needle waiting for you
                        +Phone calls/texts messages back and forth when the report broke
                        +Lie about not knowing your equipment guys when texts say you mentioned them by name
                        __________________________________________________ ___________

                        Clouded.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                          [QUOTE=Slick Pinkham;1996804]Facts:





                          6) For some reason, the fact that the Colts footballs apparently did not obey the laws of physics has not, to this point, concerned anyone. It should. But it is easy to explain! The officials didn't even have time to test all of the Colts footballs because the 13-minute halftime was ending. The Colts footballs had been in the heated room for at least 10 minutes before they were ever tested. They warmed up, maybe halfway to room temperature, which would explain a measurement of about half of the drop that was expected: 1.13/2 = 0.515.


                          Is this conjecture really a "fact"?

                          Ever wonder why Brady wouldn't make his texts available to the investigators that might exonerate him but prefers to have his name and career take a dive?
                          Last edited by speakout4; 05-07-2015, 11:35 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                            http://www.theonion.com/article/nati...uses-thi-37819

                            Nation Can’t Wait To Hear Patriots Fans’ Excuses This Time

                            WASHINGTON—After an NFL investigation revealed that 11 of New England’s 12 game balls were under-inflated during last weekend’s AFC Championship Game, Americans across the nation announced Wednesday that they would love—absolutely love—to hear the excuses from Patriots fans this time. “No, no, by all means, go ahead,” said every single person living outside of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut before reportedly smiling and adding, “I’m all ears.” “Wait, let me guess: The deflated footballs were also easier to catch for the Colts defense, so the Patriots didn’t have a real advantage, right? Or is it that the score was so lopsided that it didn’t matter in the end? No, seriously, I’m sure you guys have something really great cooked up for this one.” The American populace went on to say that they also absolutely cannot wait to hear how this new scandal will have no effect on the legacy of Tom Brady.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                              If Brady had only said this during his January press conference. I don't believe I've cheated... " I ask for our footballs to be pumped to regulation 12.5 knowing that the air temperature during the game will make the ball somewhat softer which I prefer. That is all, thank you very much.

                              Reporters and everyone would have said damn no wonder he may be the greatest. Turns over every stone to win.
                              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Brady's agent's comments are pretty funny:
                                Here's the whole sting quote. It's outrageous.

                                “One item alone taints this entire report,” Yee says. “What does it say about the league office’s protocols and ethics when it allows one team to tip it off to an issue prior to a championship game, and no league officials or game officials notified the Patriots of the same issue prior to the game? This suggests it may be more probable than not that the league cooperated with the Colts in perpetrating a sting operation.
                                In other words, if they'd known you were on to them they wouldn't have cheated. So it's your fault, not theirs. You're the unethical one, not the cheaters.

                                I'm gonna predict a lifetime ban for the two employees that deflated the balls.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X