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

Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

    Originally posted by BoomBaby31
    Dynasty I doubt, they can't rig another Superbowl and ruin the NFL reputation. One more rigid Superbowl like last year might as well be wrestling.
    Well, maybe if the Colts would do the NFL a favor and WIN the game the next time the NFL tries to rig one for them, maybe you wont be forced to watch the steelers win another superbowl

    The NFL did the best to gift-wrap the Colts a playoff win over pittsburgh. Don't blame the steelers because they actually accepted their gift in the superbowl....

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

      Originally posted by Knucklehead Warrior
      I have had a motorcycle accident. I was going 65 mph and went over the handlebars. It doesn't sound like Ben was going anywhere near that fast. I did not receive serious knee injuries and doubt Ben did either. He certainly did not get serious knee injuries from hitting the pavement. More likely he got them from hitting his handlebars or the car. I did receive very nasty knee abrasions, but the bones and tendons were fine. I would be much more concerned about head injuries. My helmet had a bad "scratch" on it.

      If Ben wants to wear or not wear a helmet, fine. I think it's silly not to, but that's his choice. He's got his ring and money, he can choose.

      No two injuries are ever the same. You can get hit the same way Carson Palmer did and not even get a bruise, yet it tore his knees up.

      Every person's body is constructed differently, with different strength amounts to bones and tissue, and also tissue could be tighter/looser in everyone.

      Just because this happened this way for you, doesn't mean thats the rule.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

        Originally posted by rommie
        Even if that is put into place, players are still going to go out and ride without wearing a helment. It's there choice. They know the risk they are taking, and I don't think they need to be told not to take that risk, they are grown men.

        Players take risk everyday. If you have ever watched MTV cribs and see an athlete's house, just think of what they have. Examples: Shaq has a bike, Jerry Stackhouse has jet skis/boats, most have ferriais. They all can be just as dangerous as riding a motorcycle.
        Then they are morons.

        And yes, they are grown men. If you work for the U.S. govt, you give up all of your rights and all privacy for the privilege to work for the govt. These guys are working for teams that pay them MILLIONS of dollars. So now, they dont just get to choose when they want to take a risk. These guys give up a lot of rights to play in the NFL, but they get a hell of a lot of nice things back in return.

        As for the others, they are dangerous, but not as bad as a bike. I was at a family reunion Saturday with over 700 people, and we actually got onto the topic of bike riding.

        Supposedly the folk lore (not sure if its true or not, I have wanted to get a bike for a while but never got around to it) is that it is not a matter of "if" you will meet the pavement, but just a matter of "how long" until you do so.

        And for the record, Jet Skiing is on the list of prohibited activities, although like I said good agents can argue to get that clause out of the contract.

        For the record, Big Ben did have a clause similar to the one I spoke of in his contract.

        Word is the Steelers wont be going after it, but it they wanted to make an example out of him, and I sure as hell would after what happened with Winslow, then he could be forced to give back 6 million dollars of his contract.

        Yes, players do take risks everyday. But there are certain things that are just common sense. After what happened to Winslow and all the berating he took, you would think other players would take notice and at least attempt to wear a helmet.

        On a side note, if I ever need a NFL agent I need to get Steinbrener(or whatever the name of his agent is). Last year Ben insisted he only road harleys and in groups to reduce risks. Now, he gets in an accident in the fastest street legal crotch rocket while driving all alone.... If this is a developement since then, then its whatever, but it seems to convenient since he had released a ton of pics of him on a harley and everything when the fuss was made last summer.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

          Originally posted by Kstat
          Well, maybe if the Colts would do the NFL a favor and WIN the game the next time the NFL tries to rig one for them, maybe you wont be forced to watch the steelers win another superbowl

          The NFL did the best to gift-wrap the Colts a playoff win over pittsburgh. Don't blame the steelers because they actually accepted their gift in the superbowl....
          QFT

          The refs did everything they could to hand us that game, and we STILL lost.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

            Ben only had the standard "risky activities" clause. The Steelers, and Roethlisberger were well-aware of the risks and there was a lot of controversy about this last summer, too. It would be very-un-Rooney-like for the Steelers to go after Ben in this case.

            Its a shame this happened. But this day was probably inevitable and Ben and the Steelers are both very fortunate that the injuries were not life threatening/ career threatening.

            Will either side learn its lesson from this? Only time will tell.

            There is plenty of blame to go around - for stupidy. Ben for refusing to wear the helmet for a very stupid reason ("Its not illegal"), and the Steelers for not amending Ben's contract to address this risk. But let's face reality, the Steelers were not going to ask Ben to not ride a motorcycle. They might have insisted he wear a helmet but motorcycle riding is very risky activity with or without a helmet.

            And as Stryder said, there probably don't need to be laws to prohibit stupidity.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              Ben only had the standard "risky activities" clause. The Steelers, and Roethlisberger were well-aware of the risks and there was a lot of controversy about this last summer, too. It would be very-un-Rooney-like for the Steelers to go after Ben in this case.

              Its a shame this happened. But this day was probably inevitable and Ben and the Steelers are both very fortunate that the injuries were not life threatening/ career threatening.

              Will either side learn its lesson from this? Only time will tell.

              There is plenty of blame to go around - for stupidy. Ben for refusing to wear the helmet for a very stupid reason ("Its not illegal"), and the Steelers for not amending Ben's contract to address this risk. But let's face reality, the Steelers were not going to ask Ben to not ride a motorcycle. They might have insisted he wear a helmet but motorcycle riding is very risky activity with or without a helmet.

              And as Stryder said, there probably don't need to be laws to prohibit stupidity.
              I meant to add that to my other post, but yes, from what I have heard the owners of the Steelers will not be going after him.

              But my point was they could, and still can.

              I agree with your other points, though. It kills me to see any players who will wear a helmet on the football field, but wont wear one of a bike because its not the law.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                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


                • #53
                  Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                  geeze, now its coming out that Big Ben never actually carried a motorcycle license.

                  Supposedly, he had a learners permit but it expired last year on his birthday.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan
                    geeze, now its coming out that Big Ben never actually carried a motorcycle license.

                    Supposedly, he had a learners permit but it expired last year on his birthday.
                    That wouldn't have stopped him from going through the windshield. On the other hand a helmet with a visor might have saved him from 7 hours of reconstructive surgery.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                      Originally posted by grace
                      That wouldn't have stopped him from going through the windshield. On the other hand a helmet with a visor might have saved him from 7 hours of reconstructive surgery.

                      Where did I say that it would have?...

                      Regardless of that, not only was was his an expired permit but even if it was renewed(which many ppl do, just renew their permit and never get a liscense) you are required to wear a helmet.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan

                        Supposedly the folk lore (not sure if its true or not, I have wanted to get a bike for a while but never got around to it) is that it is not a matter of "if" you will meet the pavement, but just a matter of "how long" until you do so.
                        There are two kinds of motorcycle riders... Those that have had their bike down... And those that will one day have their bike down.

                        -Bball
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                          Originally posted by Kstat
                          Well, maybe if the Colts would do the NFL a favor and WIN the game the next time the NFL tries to rig one for them, maybe you wont be forced to watch the steelers win another superbowl

                          The NFL did the best to gift-wrap the Colts a playoff win over pittsburgh. Don't blame the steelers because they actually accepted their gift in the superbowl....
                          LoL. True but, pass interference and defensive pass interference on ALL major yard gaining plays sure would of helped.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan
                            If you work for the U.S. govt, you give up all of your rights and all privacy for the privilege to work for the govt.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                              I'm not going to going to get into this, but talk to anyone who has or has a security clearance. They offer a lot of great oppurtunities, but also you give up any freedoms you used to have.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Roethlisberger involved in Motorcycle Accident

                                Ben's comments from a year ago are typical from someone who partakes in risky activity. They always try to excuse the fact that they are being dangerous and careless by bringing up highly improbable occurances of death. Sorry, I feel alot safter walking down the street than I would on a motorcycle without wearing helmet.

                                I don't understand why some people can't just admit what they're doing is highly dangerous. Riding a bike is fine, just admit that it's a hell of alot more dangerous than about anything else you can do.

                                But hey, you can get struck by lightening too, right? You can get bit by a poisonous snake and die. You could fall down stairs and snap your neck. I guess riding a motorcycle without a helmet seems alot less scary when you think of a bizarre, highly improbable ways to die.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X