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)

    Originally posted by Strummer View Post
    Here's the whole sting quote. It's outrageous.
    Lawyer speak for 'she wanted it'? Always blame the victim.
    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 Heisenberg View Post
      I mean, we still got friggin smoked

      Completely irrelevant.

      Nixon would have smoked McGovern no matter what in 1972, but he was still forced to resign.

      If you get caught cheating on one test question to give yourself a 100% when you otherwise would have still got a 95%, you're not going to get let off the hook because you would have got an A anyway.

      Brady/the Patriots had no clue what the score was going to be when the shadiness took place. For all they know, the game could have been decided by one point with the violation giving them the edge. It doesn't matter if the score is 56-0 or 35-34, the violation is the same regardless. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Ravens are wondering about the game they played just a week prior.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-07-2015, 11:56 AM.

      Comment


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

        The amount of incidents involving the Patriots and ethics and rule-bending/breaking is starting to become something that can't be ignored. The smoke is clearly caused by a fire.

        Just ready for the league to move on from this team. We need a new team up top, a team that isn't beset with controversy and ethics issues.
        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


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

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Completely irrelevant.

          Nixon would have smoked McGovern no matter what in 1972, but he was still forced to resign.

          If you get caught cheating on one test question to give yourself a 100% when you otherwise would have still got a 95%, you're not going to get let off the hook because you would have got an A anyway.

          Brady/the Patriots had no clue what the score was going to be before the game when the shadiness took place. For all they know, the game could have been decided by one point with the violation giving them the edge. It doesn't matter if the score is 56-0 or 35-34, the violation is the same regardless. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Ravens are wondering about the game they played just a week prior.
          And that's assuming that they only got caught in the one cheat. Say for instance, without cheating you'd likely earn no better than a 65% on a test that required you get 70% or higher to pass. You apply five different cheats, each of which increases your odds 5%, improving your score to 90%, which goes from looking like you suck at the subject to being very proficient. You got caught in one cheat. Teacher says "well, he cheated, but it was a minor cheat, he would've easily passed the test anyway." You only discovered one of the cheats.

          In the case of the Patriots, you can't assume that this was their only cheat, unfortunately. Some other team, maybe, but these guys have had so many infractions against them, it's at a point now where you can only assume they're compounding cheats, and when one of them is discovered, they are behind the scenes snickering about the four cheats we didn't find out about. Hell, even the one cheat in the test example above takes them from not passing, to passing, which is a huge impact on the outcome of the test.

          In the case of Deflategate, a deflated ball doesn't only impact the ease of the quarterback to control/throw the ball, but also for the receivers to catch the ball, and ALSO for the RBs to not fumble the ball: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...92765956,d.aWw

          You're talking a huge difference in their ability to convert first downs, and their ability to avoid turnovers by fumbles, by the QB, the receivers, and the running backs, and a turnover can completely change a game.

          Saying cheating doesn't matter, or would've had no impact on the outcome of the game is a bad, bad way to look at things. A single cheat can have an impact on a game that can completely swing the outcome.

          I'm all for finding advantages to win --- as long as they fall within the rules of the game. Spygate... Deflategate... those weren't within the rules. That's taking it too far, and creating an unfair advantage, especially in the world of the NFL where most teams are separated by a hair and a simple cheat can mean the difference between a win and a loss.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-07-2015, 12:10 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


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

            One thing the pundits keep pulling out of their backsides to justify this is all players cheat. Talking head.... well I know of a lineman that sprayed his jersey with cooking oil or Teflon so he would be slick and couldn't be held. Talking head #2... well I know a receiver that uses stickem to catch the ball easier.... blah blah blah. They can go ahead pull out every story they want on how a particular player tries to get an advantage from what I posted to biting and scratching if they want. The difference, in these examples it is one person trying to get an advantage. As others have pointed out a deflated football helps not only Brady but the guy he's handing the ball off to (easier not to fumble) and the guy catching the ball (easier to make those one handed grabs). I did forget however it does help the opponents. One butter hands D'Qwell Jackson is able to get that interception he would normally drop.
            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 RWB View Post
              One thing the pundits keep pulling out of their backsides to justify this is all players cheat. Talking head.... well I know of a lineman that sprayed his jersey with cooking oil or Teflon so he would be slick and couldn't be held. Talking head #2... well I know a receiver that uses stickem to catch the ball easier.... blah blah blah. They can go ahead pull out every story they want on how a particular player tries to get an advantage from what I posted to biting and scratching if they want. The difference, in these examples it is one person trying to get an advantage. As others have pointed out a deflated football helps not only Brady but the guy he's handing the ball off to (easier not to fumble) and the guy catching the ball (easier to make those one handed grabs). I did forget however it does help the opponents. One butter hands D'Qwell Jackson is able to get that interception he would normally drop.
              Not to mention, most of us moved beyond the "But they did it too!!" excuses somewhere around the age of 10.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


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

                One other thing... the Boston media had no problem toasting the hell out of Jim Irsay and his drug problem. Some even suggesting he should sell his team. FU globe, Shaunessy, Ryan, and Jackie M. But come hell or high water they'll never touch the Patriots.
                Last edited by RWB; 05-07-2015, 12:23 PM.
                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
                  If you get caught cheating on one test question to give yourself a 100% when you otherwise would have still got a 95%, you're not going to get let off the hook because you would have got an A anyway.
                  Heads up, I am completely stealing this in future conversations and not giving you any credit. Nice job!

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by RWB View Post
                    The standard used (Preponderance of Evidence) in Wells investigation. If you ever have the time look up Preponderance of Evidence as it relates to sexual assault. Used so much in he said she said situations.
                    Which doesn't mean Wells' found it to be 50.1 to 49.9. He could've found it to be 100% and he still would've said "More probable than not". He is simply using the legal wording of a civil case which is the standard spelled out in the NFL rules. While 50.1 to 49.9 would've certainly been the tipping point, I've seen nothing that says that was the best Wells could come up with. He could even believe it meets the criminal burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but he would've never said that because that isn't the standard he had to meet in making his determination.... even if he feels the evidence met that type of burden. IOW, he HAD to say "More probable than not" in his determinations no matter which side of the scale they fell on, and no matter how certain he was of his findings.

                    He would've still said "more probable than not" even if he was 100% sure of what he's saying had transpired. Some people seem to think he's using those words as a hedge. He's not. He's using those words because they are simply the standard that had to be met for a determination one way or the other. He isn't putting percentages on anything and we can't assume 50.1 to 49.9 is the best he had. 100% is still "More probable than not" in civil court....
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


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

                      I have to give the NFL credit, I didn't think they would taint their defending champion and best player to this degree.

                      Comment


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

                        Especially after how complicit they were destroying evidence in Spygate and trying to cover up the Ray Rice situation. Maybe they actually learned a lesson.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


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

                          You know, I've heard some people saying this is all circumstancial evidence. There's an ex-Patriot that knows just how damning evidence like that can be.

                          Interesting coincidence.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                            You know, I've heard some people saying this is all circumstancial evidence. There's an ex-Patriot that knows just how damning evidence like that can be.

                            Interesting coincidence.
                            Good point about Aaronthol. Colin Cowherd also brought up that point earlier this morning.

                            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:

                              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.
                              I think Brady's agent got caught up thinking about stings that have later been thrown out because it could be argued the sting created the illegal activity that would never have existed without the pressure of the government/law enforcement.

                              There's simply nothing here to suggest the 'sting' coerced the Pats into cheating. In fact, it looks less like a sting to me and more like the Colts' had been ignored and the league had done nothing based on their accusation until they were forced to via irrefutable evidence being handed to them midgame. Even then, I suspect the league had assumed the majority of balls would test OK at halftime and there would be nothing to all of this and were blindsided by this being a real issue and the Colts' suspicions right all along.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Good point about Aaronthol. Colin Cowherd also brought up that point earlier this morning.
                                Ugh. I despise that guy. Almost hurts to hear that we share a common thought.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X