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)

    "I can't read text messages, I'm not a linguist. Now read this 1500 word article I agree with."

    Did someone read it aloud to you? I'm confused about how you're incapable of reading text messages, since you don't have a linguist degree, but are capable of communicating through the exact channel as texts.
    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
      I have made it clear that I am a scientist and am offering an opinion only on the scientific aspects of the Wells report, roughly 160 pages or so.
      That's kinda disingenuous considering a post I remember from a few pages back where you complained about "weasel words" in the report.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        If data can be so easily misinterpreted for nefarious reasons, doesn't that swing to both sides of the argument anyways?

        It doesn't do much good to an argument to say "but data can be manipulated, now let me tell you why my data is better."
        Data was not manipulated.

        One set of data was THROWN OUT.
        One set of data was SAVED.

        Why? because the data was from two gauges that behaved DIFFERENTLY.

        What set of data should be thrown out? The set of data from halftime measurements that were based on the gauge that had NOT been used in the pregame checks.

        What set of data WAS thrown out? The set of data from halftime measurements that were based on the gauge that HAD been used in the pregame checks, to the recollection of the referee.


        This is not complicated. Two sets of data. One suggests guilt and one suggests innocence. How do you pick? I'd pick the set of data that agrees with what the ref says that he had actually done. the ref was the only one there who would have an idea of which gauge he had used.

        Wells picked the set of data that disagreed with what the ref said that he had actually done. He gives no reason for that choice, while lauding the ref for his outstanding attention to detail and telling the ref that his memory must be faulty.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-12-2015, 03:35 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: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

          Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
          Guys the personal attacking of him is kind of ridiculous.

          Whether or not any of us want to admit it, if this situation were in reverse and it were the colts that had this scandal, we, or at least to majority of us, would fight to defend their honor and prove their innocence.

          If this situation were in reverse and it were the Colts that had this scandal, I would be fighting to defend them from 160 pages of scientific analysis that is as scientifically valid as the actions of a TV faith healer.
          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)

            Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
            Guys the personal attacking of him is kind of ridiculous.

            Whether or not any of us want to admit it, if this situation were in reverse and it were the colts that had this scandal, we, or at least to majority of us, would fight to defend their honor and prove their innocence.
            Maybe. Or one could admit that there was enough evidence to prove that your team or someone from your team was involved in some wrongdoing.

            The idea that the league was performing a sting operation in order to "get" Tom Brady, or the Patriots is kind of a silly idea. The NFL and Goodell have zero reason to do so. It is way more far fetched that the league would perform a witch hunt on the most successful organization over the last decade and a half, than to believe that Tom Brady tried to cheat.

            As an outsider looking in on the back and forth debate - Slick is doing a great job of providing scientific evidence to prove what he believes to be the truth. But he is not addressing the other tidbits of information (text messages, Brady/Pats being uncooperative, not allowing the 2nd interview with McNally, etc) that are also damning to the Pats case. Maybe he feels that the scientific evidence makes everything else obsolete.
            Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 05-12-2015, 03:36 PM.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              Data was not manipulated.
              Here, let me fix it then.

              "Data can be misinterpreted, now let me tell you why my interpretation is better."
              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 Since86 View Post
                If you're incapable of deciphering simple English, then perhaps spending free time on an internet message board that revolves around the written word isn't the best choice.
                My God you are an purposefully obtuse and excessively rude poster.
                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)

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  The idea that the league was performing a sting operation in order to "get" Tom Brady, or the Patriots is kind of a silly idea.
                  Especially when the balls weren't being watched. The deflator just walked away with them, the NFL had to watch stadium tape to figure out what happened to them. And originally the NFL had no intention of further testing the balls either in game or at half time. That's not how stings work. If anything the NFL didn't believe the Patriots were cheating until the evidence proved them wrong.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Here, let me fix it then.

                    "Data can be misinterpreted, now let me tell you why my interpretation is better."

                    1.01 is not bigger than 1.13.

                    Is that open to misinterpretation?

                    It doesn't even really matter whether Wells threw out the right set of data or the wrong set of data. The fact that HE JUST PICKED ONE, arbitrarily,makes his analysis equal to that of a magic 8 ball.

                    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)

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      My God you are an purposefully obtuse and excessively rude poster.
                      Obtuse. Now there's a word you should know...
                      Last edited by travmil; 05-13-2015, 11:06 AM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        My God you are an purposefully obtuse and excessively rude poster.
                        I am. If you're going to try and act like we're idiots, and you can't decipher a simple text message, I'm going to be obtuse and rude on purpose.

                        EDIT: And really, I'm just laughing at how dumb that excuse is. I mean, you can't read a text message, but you're actively reading a freaking message board.
                        Last edited by Since86; 05-12-2015, 03:57 PM.
                        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
                          1.01 is not bigger than 1.13.

                          Is that open to misinterpretation?

                          It doesn't even really matter whether Wells threw out the right set of data or the wrong set of data. The fact that HE JUST PICKED ONE, arbitrarily,makes his analysis equal to that of a magic 8 ball.

                          You object to the word "manipulate" so I use the EXACT word you used "misinterpreted" and now you object to it too?

                          EDIT: I'll ask it again, if data can be misinterpreted to further an agenda, then why should we put faith in your interpretation? (And I do agree it can, and regularly is misinterpreted. I just find it ironic you're using an excuse that is just as valid to what you're saying.)
                          Last edited by Since86; 05-12-2015, 03:54 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


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

                            Just to refresh everyone's memory. This was a poll from Boston on what they thought Irsay should get because of his drug abuse. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/1...-a-tough-spot/


                            What Should Roger Goodell Do About Jim Irsay?

                            D.) Some combination of A, B & C 44.78%


                            A.) Six-Figure Fine 23.88%


                            E.) Nothing, people make mistakes 14.93%


                            B.) Indefinite Suspension 11.94%


                            C.) Loss Of Draft Pick(s) 4.47%

                            Comments (0)
                            Return To Poll
                            Last edited by RWB; 05-12-2015, 04:04 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)

                              "Sting" or "not a sting"

                              It can be kind of tricky.

                              The key is to ask yourself: did the Colts and the NFL want to


                              A) ensure that no deflated footballs were ever used for even one second in the game,
                              or
                              B) ensure that, if possible, the Patriots would be nailed with deflating footballs if we can find any evidence that they have done it and have gotten deflated footballs into a game


                              If the answer is #1, the NFL would have done what Paul Tagliabue says that he would have done:
                              Call up the Patriots.
                              Tell them that a GM (Grigson, though not naming him) had made allegations that others in the league have suspected the Patriots of using deflated footballs.
                              Tell them that the information was nonspecific, as the GM would name no source, would give no hard information, and would not even indicate anything beyond that he had heard "chatter".
                              Warn them that they (the NFL) would be watching, CLOSELY, so it damn well better not happen, this week, or any other week. We will be watching.


                              If the answer is #2, then it means that you don't really care if an illegal football is used or not in a game. It means that you think that it is well worth it to compromise the integrity of the game in order to catch someone in the act.

                              Reasonable people might classify #2 as a sting operation.

                              It doesn't mean the people running the sting were all-out to get X, Y, or Z.
                              It means that trying to catching somebody in the act is preferable to the prevention of misconduct.
                              It doesn't even mean it was set up as a trap. I am sure that every person involved-- Grigson, Kensil, the refs-- thought (FALSELY) that a football at 12.5 psi at 72 degrees will be at 12.5 psi at 100 degrees, 40 degrees, or zero degrees. Thus if we see 12.4, "we've gotcha, dead to rights".
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-12-2015, 04:13 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: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

                                This is gonna surpass the Lance Stephenson thread isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X