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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
    But I'm curious of your opinion on the text messages and their meaning. Do you not believe the messages are incriminating at all?
    People have been trying to get him to address these things, but he simply refuses to acknowledge said requests. It's like dealing with a 4 year old and some missing chocolate chip cookies. The kid has chocolate around his mouth, chocolate on his hands and is sitting in a pile of crumbs from the cookies, but still says 'No, I didn't eat any.'

    It's both sad and entertaining to see a grown adult act like this.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      I do not think that they are irrelevant.

      I do think, however, that pressure measurements on footballs are MORE RELEVANT to deciding what is the pressure within footballs.

      Do you honestly believe that pressure measurements on footballs are irrelevant to deciding what is the pressure within footballs?
      Do you honestly believe that the pressure is the only evidence that should be considered? The pressure was low. They acted shady when asked about it. You investigate. That's the very definition of an investigation, find the thread and keep pulling on it.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Dr. Marlow agreed with them. You just told me I could trust Dr. Marlow.
        Then piece of data in the Wells report that Dr. Marlow is mentioned, by name, as himself personally reviewing and confirming is the issue of statistical significance.

        There are repeated references to "our consultants said this" but to say in each case that it refers to Dr. Marlow himself is rather silly.
        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)

          I mean 900 scientists across the world and the passage below. But ya, I'd discount it in a sentence, smh.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponent_(consulting_firm)

          Exponent has been involved in the investigations of many well known incidents including the now debunked report aired on Dateline in 1993 about fires and explosions involving sidesaddle fuel tanks on Chevrolet C/K trucks, the disputed Consumer Reports finding on Suzuki roll-over safety,[14] the 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls, the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 among many other aviation accidents, and the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[15] The Federal Emergency Management Agency also hired Exponent to examine the Oklahoma City bombing damage aftermath, specifically the damage to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.[15] NASA hired Exponent in 1986 to determine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In 2003, Exponent was hired by the U.S. government to investigate the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.[16]

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            Then piece of data in the Wells report that Dr. Marlow is mentioned, by name, as himself personally reviewing and confirming is the issue of statistical significance.

            There are repeated references to "our consultants said this" but to say in each case that it refers to Dr. Marlow himself is rather silly.
            I just quoted 6 specific instances where Dr. Marlow is mentioned by name, and that was stopping at page 131. Care to try again?
            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 travmil View Post
              The pressure was low.
              That simply is not true, though!

              I'll quote Mr. Florio again "all 12 balls (including the one that had been intercepted by Jackson) tested within the range consistent with the application of the Ideal Gas Law"
              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ally-unfolded/

              It is reasonable to look for a suspect's DNA after you think there has been a murder.
              But when the "murder victim" then shows up and says "Hi guys, what's up?" then your job pretty much ends right there.

              I'm out for awhile. Work's piled up.
              See you all in the Pacers forum in October
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-13-2015, 11:12 AM.
              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
                I do not think that they are irrelevant.

                I do think, however, that pressure measurements on footballs are MORE RELEVANT to deciding what is the pressure within footballs.

                Do you honestly believe that pressure measurements on footballs are irrelevant to deciding what is the pressure within footballs?
                As a guy who honestly does not have the scientific knowledge to be able to make an emphatic case on either end of the coin, I've actually read up on as much as I can regarding the Ideal Gas law, the pressure measurements of the footballs, and everything else.

                If I'm understanding correctly, you are correct in your analysis of the PSI numbers. But as 86 said, the NFL messed things up when they didn't properly keep track of everything. So now you're going on the word of another person (the head referee) as opposed to having cold hard evidence. Some people want to throw that evidence out citing it as inadmissible

                If you're on the other side of the coin and want to honor the ref's word as truth (which he probably has no reason to lie) that's fine. But it's my opinion that one would have to honor the unedited words and conversations that were sent through text messages as well. No?

                Edit: I am not trying to gang up on you, as you seem to be fighting with just about everyone within the thread lol. I am just asking your opinion on everything. It seems obvious to me that you strongly believe the Pats are absolved of any wrongdoing. I'm just curious as to why (outside of you being a Pats fan)
                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 05-13-2015, 11:14 AM.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  If 50% of the text messages cited by Wells were shown to be altered, truncated, or deleted, would that bother you?
                  Oh, for ****'s sake.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    I do not think that they are irrelevant.

                    I do think, however, that pressure measurements on footballs are MORE RELEVANT to deciding what is the pressure within footballs.

                    Do you honestly believe that pressure measurements on footballs are irrelevant to deciding what is the pressure within footballs?
                    You don't think that an admission of guilt is more relevant than some random numbers? Seriously?!

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      You can make definitive conclusions if you simply trust the memory of the head referee to be accurate.

                      He says that he set the Colts footballs all at about 13.0
                      He say that he set the Patriots footballs all at about 12.5
                      He says that he remembers using a certain gauge in pregame.
                      At halftime, when people used the same gauge that he says that he used in the pregame, the conclusion is

                      "the footballs are at the pressure where they should be."


                      So then Mr. Wells decides "Hmmm.... I think that he doesn't remember right", lets use data from the other gauge too, in case he messed up.

                      the conclusion is "the footballs are at the pressure where they should be"

                      So then Mr. Wells decides "Hmmm.... I KNOW that he doesn't remember right", lets throw out all of the data obtained suing the gauge that he remembers having used

                      the conclusion then is "Now we're not sure any more, one way or another. But let's talk about cell phones"
                      Again you are cherry picking. The initial psi measurements were confirmed by the teams themselves of what they gave the refs before the game. The ref did not remember exactly which gauge he used. In fact he said it was very possible he used the other gauge and whats more ridiculous is that you keep repeating the same lines as before trusting a upper 60 year old refs memory as proof positive while ignoring his admission as I already stated.

                      Secondly you do not know what the Princeton professor saw. You have to assume he saw all the data they had and not just a portion of it like you "want" to believe.

                      Personally I think from experience guys like that only sign off on it if they see all the data because they understand how things can be misinterpreted.

                      According to both Exponentand Dr. Marlow, the difference in the average pressure drops between the Patriots and Colts footballs is
                      statistically significant.This conclusion was consistent regardless of the assumptions made as to which of the two gauges was used to measure the game balls prior to the game and at halftime.


                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        See you all in the Pacers forum in October
                        LOL! You are a trip man....

                        Comment


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

                          I like how other scientists tell us the ideal gas law can't be the end all be all in this equation, yet slick continues to use it as the end all be all in this situation...

                          Comment


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

                            Slick--Please for the sake of clarity tell us exactly what the ref remembered. My concerns:


                            Specifically the balls were not labeled so there was no before and after correlation for each ball which would be necessary for any specific scientific conclusion.

                            i still wonder why the colts balls were significantly different.

                            The tobacco and asbestos issues occurred a long time ago so we can't conclude that the same people were involved or that the firm is corrupt to the core over a long period.

                            If the text messages are relevant but less relevant why not discuss their relevancy. While there seems to be a stalemate with regard to psi there doesn't seem to be much difference of opinion as to what the equipment people were doing especially McNally whose job had nothing to do with the balls yet he was in possession of the balls.

                            Comment


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

                              My guess is that Brady has been doing this for a long time. Who knows how many games are tainted in some way. It's a stretch to think he just recently started this.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                My guess is that Brady has been doing this for a long time. Who knows how many games are tainted in some way. It's a stretch to think he just recently started this.
                                And on that note, former Dolphins QB A.J. Feeley claims the Pats* were playing with a "beat up" football during a game...in 2004.

                                http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/1...id%3D282022044

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X