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

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    describe for me what is happening at 1:43 to 1:45.
    It looks to me like footballs are held and spun in a tub of standing water, before a brief towel-dry.
    Does the tub not exist is your universe?

    Haven't watched the video, and can't due to work restrictions, but I can read plain english.

    Did you read the pdf I linked, or are you just being an ******* to be an *******? I guess along with mistrusting anonymous sources, you also mistrust the plain written word of the very source you're pushing.
    Last edited by Since86; 01-28-2015, 02:19 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      75 degrees (in the experiment) differs from 72 degrees (room temperature)
      50 degrees (in the experiment) differs from 51 degrees (game time temperature)

      Thus a 25 degree drop (in the experiment) differs from a 21 degree drop (in reality)

      temperature/psi drop is a linear phenomenon.

      For the Patriots, (21/25) * 1.1 = 0.92
      for the Colts, (21/25) * 1.1 * (13.5/12.5) = 0.98

      Pats' balls: 12.50 to 11.58: PASS to FAIL (7.3%)
      Colts' balls: 13.50 to 12.52: PASS to PASS (7.3%)
      Slick, every time you post these numbers the percentage rates go down and the PSI numbers go up. You can't cite an experiment to back your argument and then change the conditions of the experiment to meet other criteria. You keep changing the rules of the argument.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        75 degrees (in the experiment) differs from 72 degrees (room temperature)
        50 degrees (in the experiment) differs from 51 degrees (game time temperature)

        Thus a 25 degree drop (in the experiment) differs from a 21 degree drop (in reality)

        temperature/psi drop is a linear phenomenon.

        For the Patriots, (21/25) * 1.1 = 0.92
        for the Colts, (21/25) * 1.1 * (13.5/12.5) = 0.98

        Pats' balls: 12.50 to 11.58: PASS to FAIL (7.3%)
        Colts' balls: 13.50 to 12.52: PASS to PASS (7.3%)
        In order for this to work the Colts Footballs had to be at 13.50 to begin with, its the only way. Moreover, any significant difference between the Colts and Pats balls at half time in the percentage of PSI reduction you show as 7.3% means they were tampered with? There's a whole lot of things that could work against this proving what they think it'll prove.

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          1 psi per 20 degree drop? So, going from 70 to 10 would take a ball from 12.5 to 9.5 psi, 25% reduction? Then factoring in wetness maybe down to 8 psi?????? 36% reduction?????

          I, like Bill, am not a scientist, but empirically that just doesn't seem possible.

          Can stiffer leather compensate for that?
          exact predictions by the ideal gas law, at a barometric pressure of 29.75 inches of mercury:

          92 degrees F= 13.52 psi
          72 degrees F= 12.50 psi -- this is the only thing that ever gets measured
          52 degrees F= 11.48 psi
          32 degrees F= 10.46 psi
          12 degrees F= 9.44 psi
          -8 degrees F= 8.42 psi

          it apparently can and it apparently does

          the fundamental flaw is confusing pressure with compressibility

          Put the -8 degrees F football at 8.42 psi in a -8 degrees F bench vise
          Put the 72 degrees F football at 12.50 psi in a 72 degrees F bench vise

          The cold football will be harder to compress than the warm football
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-28-2015, 02:34 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

            Thanks for putting up with us Slick

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              Slick, every time you post these numbers the percentage rates go down and the PSI numbers go up. You can't cite an experiment to back your argument and then change the conditions of the experiment to meet other criteria. You keep changing the rules of the argument.
              Until you insisted that we use the Carenegie Mellon data, I never did.

              If we use the Carenegie Mellon data, as you did, we either have to redo the gas law calculations at THEIR temperatures and pressure or adjust their data to the temperatures and pressures that existed in Foxboro. You can't pick half of one and half of the other, or else you are comparing apples to fence posts.
              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

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                Until you insisted that we use the Carenegie Mellon data, I never did.

                If we use the Carenegie Mellon data, as you did, we either have to redo the gas law calculations at THEIR temperatures and pressure or adjust their data to the temperatures and pressures that existed in Foxboro. You can't pick half of one and half of the other, or else you are comparing apples to fence posts.
                Wait, when did I insist that we use that data?

                IIRC, the part of the report I referenced actually refuted the data, not agreed with it.

                Overlooked by the CMU folks (and Belichick, and others) was the reported ability of the Colts’ footballs to remain within the accepted range of 12.5 to 13.5 PSI after the same duration of exposure to the same elements and conditions. If, on average, the footballs tested at a starting PSI lost 1.8 pounds on average (i.e., 14.4 percent of their air pressure), footballs pumped even to the maximum of 13.5 PSI would have lost 1.94 PSI on average, taking them to 11.56, nearly a full bound below the minimum limit.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  FYI, Neil deGrasse Tyson's take:

                  For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
                  http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/01/nei...n-deflategate/

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    Ill be honest, I have no clue what PSI stands for. I have gotten drunk and imagined what it stands for, but I probably should post those things.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      This is the text of an e-mail that I received from Neil deGrasse Tyson at 3:46 PM on Monday, after I posted my calculations on his facebook page earlier that same morning:

                      ---
                      Dear Professor ***,

                      Thank you for being among those who pointed out my oversight in using gauge pressure rather than absolute pressure in the ideal gas formula. I will post a revision shortly.

                      Regards,
                      Neil deGrasse Tyson
                      ---------

                      later that day on his facebook page:

                      Many of my physics-fluent twitter followers, as well as others in the blogosphere, were quick to point out that in my calculation I neglected to account for the fact that the football pressures were "gauge" pressures (as would be the pressures measured in any ball on Earth) rather than "absolute" pressures. And the calculation that I performed applies only to absolute pressures -- which reference the case where the football pressure is measured in the vacuum of space, without the effects of atmospheric pressure on the measurement. Using the (correct) gauge pressure in the calculation reduces the needed inflation temperature to about 90-degrees for that effect.

                      This is simply an oversight on my part, and I'm glad so many stepped forward to correct it. But what it means is that the Patriots would simply need to have inflated the balls with (more accessible) 90 degree air rather than 125 degree air. A delightfully moot point since neither temperature absolves the NE Patriots even as we all know that the NE Patriots, in their 45 to 7 victory over the Colts, would have won the game no matter the ball pressure. And, as far as I am concerned, the Patriots would have won that game even in the vacuum of space.

                      As Always, Keep Looking up.

                      -Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chicago

                      short version:
                      He re-did the calculations and found my result to be valid.
                      He then analyzed it from the point of "what sort of temperature drop do you need in order to explain a 2 psi pressure drop"
                      His answer: 21 degrees doesn't get you there. It takes a drop of about 40 degrees.
                      So the footballs would have had to start at 91 degrees and end up at 51 degrees (or equivalently, start at 72 degrees and end up at 32 degrees)

                      I analyzed it from the point of view of "what sort of pressure drop results from a 21-degree temperature drop"
                      answer: a little over 1 psi

                      If I instead analyze it
                      from the point of view of "what sort of pressure drop results from a 40-degree temperature drop"
                      answer: about 2 psi

                      (Note what I said earlier, every 20 degrees gets you another 1 psi)

                      ----


                      so...

                      He was still assuming that a 2 psi drop must be explained (one source)
                      I was assuming that a 1 psi drop must be explained (based on a different source that noted that 1 ball didn't drop, 1 ball dropped 2 psi, and the other 10 balls dropped closer to 1 psi.)
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-28-2015, 03:12 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

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        Compare the media attention on this to the media attention on the acts of Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, and Aaron Hernandez COMBINED.

                        You are right, is is crazy on behalf of the media. That is exactly what I am saying.
                        I've not once voiced that the media isn't going way too far kn this. just that the league doesn't owe an apology for an investigation
                        #LanceEffect

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post

                          He re-did the calculations and found my result to be valid.
                          And also goes on to say that neither temp. 125 or 90, absolves the Patriots.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            And also goes on to say that neither temp. 125 or 90, absolves the Patriots.
                            Because he thinks that he needs to explain a 2 psi pressure drop, and only 90 degree air will do it (gives a 40 degree temp drop)
                            If he had considered the alternate possibility (based on a different source) that he needed to explain only a 1 psi pressure drop, 72 degree air will do it and the Patriots would be absolved.

                            ---
                            #1: Make no mistake about it, if the NFL ever verifies a 2 psi average drop in the Patriots footballs , that much of a drop becomes really hard to explain.

                            #2: If the NFL ever verifies a much less than 1 psi average drop in the Colts footballs , that little of a drop becomes really hard to explain.

                            The only sensible explanation other than tampering for #1 was that the air inside the footballs was indeed 90 degrees, and the only way that could have happened, by their explanation, is that their rubbing procedure created so much friction that the footballs heated up by 20 degrees. Did they use a belt sander or something?

                            Curiously, though, Belichick says exactly that: their rubbing procedure created so much friction that the footballs were raised in pressure by 1 psi (which can only mean that they were heated up by 20 degrees; remember, 20 degrees = 1 psi).
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-28-2015, 03:36 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

                              Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
                              I've not once voiced that the media isn't going way too far kn this. just that the league doesn't owe an apology for an investigation
                              Certainly the league doesn't owe an apology for conducting an investigation. I agree, and Robert Kraft likely does too.

                              The league would owe an apology for dragging out the investigation forever, while dragging people's names in the mud by false leaks, if (and only if) it turns out that they had no basis for making such strong accusations in the first place. I can't imagine why such a position would be considered ridiculous by anyone.
                              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

                                I think we're at an impasse here until either (a) the NFL makes its ruling, or (b) the exact weight of the footballs becomes known.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X