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)

    In a way, the Brady situation feels more and more like the Lance Armstrong situation, where you have an ultra-competitive guy who is perpetually in the top ranks of his sport, starts to have a number of competitors call you out for various infractions, vehemently deny, get taken to court, appeal, deny, appeal, deny, appeal, deny, more stuff comes out, you're thinking "dude, just shut up and you won't get further penalized" but they keep going because they refuse to have their legacy dented even .001%, even if the allegations are true and they end up causing way more damage than if they'd just owned up to the initial infractions and let it go. That's what I feel like with Brady, who I have never really trusted, sort of like Armstrong. He's not going to let this go, he'll continue to appeal and fight and talk and more stuff will come out that just further vilifies his conduct, like the whole "destroyed his cellphone" thing, which wouldn't have surfaced had he just let it go. It makes me wonder what else the NFL knows about him that they haven't divulged and likely wouldn't as long as Brady keeps his trap shut.

    The whole thing for me is, I can't understand why, from a pure business/marketing perspective, the NFL would "go after" the Patriots and Tom like they claim. The NFL is Goodell's product, it makes zero sense on any level to lay waste to one of your own teams, the one that just won the most recent Super Bowl, on some personal vendetta. Normally, the league would be pushing the Patriot brand after a Super Bowl win, like any SB winner. Which is why I have a hard time buying what the Pats are selling right now.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-13-2015, 01:52 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)

      Anyone else seeing rumors that Brady and Gisele might be getting a divorce?

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
        Anyone else seeing rumors that Brady and Gisele might be getting a divorce?
        Yep right along with Ben Affleck's nanny/sidepiece getting her picture taken wearing Brady's four rings(that is true there' s a pic of it) because they all went to Vegas together

        As for this being true? I'll believe it when I see it. They say this about celeb couples all the time (its low hanging fruit really)

        Comment


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


          Comment


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

            Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
            Anyone else seeing rumors that Brady and Gisele might be getting a divorce?
            Rumor has it Gisele got deflated and Brady just couldn't handle the coincidence.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
              Rumor has it Gisele got deflated and Brady just couldn't handle the coincidence.
              Brady liked a softer feel and Gisele refused to deflate is what I heard...
              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)

                http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ude-witnesses/

                Report: Next week’s Brady hearing could include witnesses


                On Wednesday, the NFL and the NFLPA are scheduled to return to Judge Richard M. Berman’s courtroom for a settlement conference and oral argument regarding Tom Brady’s four-game suspension. But there’s another wrinkle to the proceedings that could become very interesting.

                Sal Paolantonio of ESPN reports that Wednesday’s session “could include testimony from witnesses.”

                So who would the witnesses be? The parties have agreed that there’s no need for any evidence to be developed beyond the 456-page appeal hearing transcript, the 243-page Ted Wells report, and any other exhibits introduced during the league’s in-house procedures. With Commissioner Roger Goodell and Brady not required to attend, they presumably wouldn’t be testifying.

                It’s possible that Judge Berman, whose questions this past Wednesday focused much more on the underlying facts that have no real bearing on the outcome of the litigation than the legal principles that do, is curious about the potential testimony of Patriots equipment staffers John Jastremki and Jim McNally. Neither testified at the appeal hearing, and neither have told their story at any time under oath.

                Armed with text messages that for whatever reason Ted Wells and his team of investigators didn’t completely study before questioning McNally, having McNally and Jastremski put a hand on the Bible and promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth before getting grilled about all of the text messages in the presence of the judge could finally produce the Nathan Jessup moment that Wells for whatever reason was unable to secure when privately interviewing them.

                Even if it’s completely irrelevant to the issues that Judge Berman will be resolving, it’s a fascinating potential twist that would instantly make #DeflateGate far more compelling. And if Judge Berman decides he wants to hear from them, there’s really nothing either side can do as a practical matter to stop him.

                Comment


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

                  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ttend-hearing/

                  Report: With settlement talks at “standstill,” Brady won’t attend hearing


                  There was a game of will Tom Brady play or won’t he before last Thursday’s Patriots preseason game against the Packers that was ultimately settled when Brady made a cameo appearance in the game.

                  Tuesday has seen similar uncertainty about whether Brady will attend Wednesday’s hearing in Manhattan regarding his attempt to have his four-game suspension wiped out. Brady wasn’t at practice on Tuesday and reports were that he planned to attend the hearing despite Judge Richard Berman deciding it wasn’t necessary that the Patriots quarterback or NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell be in the courtroom.

                  Settlement talks were going on in the case on Tuesday and it seems the result of those talks have pushed Brady in the other direction. Albert Breer of NFL Media reports the talks are at a “standstill” and that the judge has informed Brady that there’s no reason for him to be in attendance on Wednesday. As a result, Tom Pelissero of USA Today reports that Brady is expected to be back at practice with the team instead.

                  Mike Florio reported last week that the NFL demanded “a laundry list of concessions regarding the Wells report and the NFL’s authority to suspend Brady and other players for conduct detrimental to the league and obstructing a league investigation” in order to reach a settlement that reduced Brady’s penalty. That was a non-starter for Brady and the NFLPA and if things haven’t changed much in this week’s talks, we may be waiting for Berman’s ruling before we’re certain about the answer to Brady’s status for the first four weeks of the season.

                  Comment


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

                    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...tion/31905317/

                    Biscuit — the man who stamped "Tom Brady Sux" on 20,000 cans of Wee Mac Scottish Ale without the permission of his bosses at Sun King — had agreed, finally, to meet.

                    He had agreed to a short interview, no photos, no video, no using his real name.

                    The brewery has received numerous profanity-laced phone calls and, Sun King co-owner Clay Robinson said, one death threat against Biscuit.
                    **** the Pats. Add 4 more games to Brady's sentence.
                    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                    Comment


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

                      http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/1...d%3D1692657469

                      With DeflateGate's court hearings resuming on Wednesday, expect plenty of new twists and turns in the unending saga. The first tidbit of the day, courtesy of Adam Schefter, is that Tom Brady is willing to accept punishment from the league. However, his acceptance is only on the condition that he failed to cooperate with the NFL. He will not admit fault to any information/speculation that sprung forth from Ted Wells' "independent" report.

                      'Tom Brady is open to accepting some form of suspension, but only if it can be for failing to cooperate with the NFL rather than admitting to the Wells' Report findings, per league sources.The NFL has been adamant that Brady admits to the report's findings, something he doesn't seem willing to ever do. With that in mind, settlement discussions have gone "nowhere", according to sources, and the two sides are back in court today.'

                      As Schefter notes, the league has been insistent that Brady cop to the speculative charges in the Wells Report. Roger Goodell has a history of showing leniency to any players willing to show contrition, but Brady has dug in and refused to kiss the ring. While new information, this bit from Schefter is more of the same out of DeflateGate: Brady willing to take punishment if the league can prove that he is culpable, but shaking off any ruling by way of assumption; Goodell going with his gut and governing on the belief that something just doesn't smell right.

                      Comment


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

                        This whole thing seems like a massive waste of brainpower and media attention!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          The whole thing for me is, I can't understand why, from a pure business/marketing perspective, the NFL would "go after" the Patriots and Tom like they claim. The NFL is Goodell's product, it makes zero sense on any level to lay waste to one of your own teams, the one that just won the most recent Super Bowl, on some personal vendetta. Normally, the league would be pushing the Patriot brand after a Super Bowl win, like any SB winner. Which is why I have a hard time buying what the Pats are selling right now.
                          There are 3 sides in my opinion. You have the NFL (Goodell), and the Pats and separate from the Pats is the NFL players union with Tom Brady.

                          When I had a talk with my older brother the only way it made sense to me is if Tom is the easiest figure head to throw under the bus while only presenting a subset of the evidence against the Pats. So essentially I think there must be more because it absolutely makes no sense to target the Pats and ruin golden boys image if the fine is in the books and is an easy out for Goodell to use even before the investigation was ordered.

                          I mean how do you explain Kraft going from the position that he will fight it to the end to meeting with Goodell and then going all belly up like some puppet. My bet is that there is more evidence against the Pats and the easiest shark food was Tom because otherwise it makes no sense for the league to go all in against the Pats.

                          Comment


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




                            Dang, but would anyone be completely shocked? It isn't like the Pats are above this.

                            Comment


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

                              ^^ Peyton is sitting somewhere just shaking his head.

                              Let's see how he spins this one with the upcoming questions.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post



                                Dang, but would anyone be completely shocked? It isn't like the Pats are above this.
                                Considering the other stuff they have done. IE extra radio to helmet. Wouldn't surprise me one bit

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X