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 make it official: McDaniels to be introduced Wednesday

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

  • Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

    Hoodie didn’t trade him. Brady and Kraft were responsible for it. Hoodie was mad as hell. If you wouldn’t hire the best NFL coach of all time, you have a problem. Hoodie had a reason not to play Butler. I would guess it was disciplinary.
    I don't want Belichick because I have morals.

    One clean championship is worth more to me than five dirty ones.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

      Really ?? Well then, how did the NFL handle this ??
      They ignored it just like they do all over the League.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Shade View Post

        I don't want Belichick because I have morals.

        One clean championship is worth more to me than five dirty ones.
        Morals and NFL football is an oxymoron and that also makes you a loser.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

          Really ?? Well then, how did the NFL handle this ??
          Anyone who had done any form of live broadcast production could have told you that the "smoking gun" that was used for proof on that was a audio glitch on the broadcast, it was that obvious. IIRC, the same audio glitch that Pats fans were holding up as "proof" returned in a New England home game on CBS about a year later....
          "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


          • Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            I'm just gonna leave this here.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...10500-idx.html

            Belichick Suddenly Quits Jets After 1 Day
            Coach Cites Uncertainty of Ownership
            By Leonard Shapiro
            Washington Post Staff Writer
            Wednesday, January 5, 2000; Page D01

            Bill Belichick stunned the New York Jets yesterday when he abruptly resigned as head coach of the team, a job he held for less than a day after Bill Parcells announced his resignation from the same position Monday.

            Belichick cited the uncertainty of an impending change of Jets ownership as the reason for stepping down from a job that was guaranteed to him by contract when he became the team's defensive coordinator and assistant head coach three years ago.

            "There are a number of obvious uncertainties that would affect the head coach of the team," Belichick said at the Jets' Long Island headquarters during a bizarre news conference called originally to introduce him as the team's next coach.

            "I just don't feel at this time that I can lead the Jets with the 100 percent conviction that I need."

            Jets President Steve Gutman said Belichick submitted a handwritten resignation note minutes before the news conference began. Parcells also had planned to attend the session for his longtime assistant going back to their days on the New York Giants in the 1980s, but when he heard about the resignation, he did not come into the room.

            Gutman said Belichick's original contract addressed the uncertainties of his role under any new owner. He also described Belichick as having "personal turmoil."

            The New England Patriots also wanted to speak with Belichick about the vacancy created Monday when Pete Carroll was fired. The team was denied permission by the Jets and the NFL to contact Belichick about the job because he was under contract to the Jets.

            The NFL released a statement yesterday, saying the Jets "informed our office that they continue to retain their contractual rights to Bill Belichick despite his announced resignation as Jets head coach. Based upon that information and upon Belichick's contract on file with this office, we have advised our clubs that no club other than the Jets is permitted to speak with Belichick or his representatives about any NFL employment unless further notified by this office."

            Belichick earned a $1 million bonus from the Jets last year as an inducement not to speak with other teams about a head coaching job. League sources said yesterday he essentially had hoped to become a "free agent" if Parcells had decided to resign. That would have allowed him more leverage in contract talks with any team interested in his services and the Jets.

            One league source indicated that Commissioner Paul Tagliabue eventually might have to settle any dispute between Belichick and the Jets, or any other team that wants him as their head coach. In addition to the Jets and Patriots, the Green Bay Packers have a coaching vacancy, and there could be more in the next week, most noteably in New Orleans, where Mike Ditka could lose his job.

            Other possible candidates for the Jets job are expected to include former Kansas City coach Marty Schottenheimer, St. Louis offensive coordinator Mike Martz, Atlanta offensive line coach Art Shell, and University of Miami Coach Butch Davis. Denver offensive coordinator Gary Kubiak said yesterday that he was not interested in the job, though he did speak with the team Monday.

            The Jets have been put up for sale by the estate of late owner Leon Hess, who died last May. A decision on a buyer is expected any day now from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the firm hired by the estate to handle the sale. The two leading candidates are Charles Dolan, head of Cablevision and owner of the Knicks and Rangers, and pharmaceutical heir Robert Johnson IV, with any buyer still subject to approval by a three-quarters majority of team owners.

            Belichick was the head coach of the Cleveland Browns from 1991 to 1995 and was fired following a 5-11 season after team owner Art Modell already had announced he was moving the franchise to Baltimore. The relationship between Modell and Belichick deteriorated that season, and Belichick alluded to that yesterday in his decision to resign.

            "I've been in situations, and more importantly my family has been in a situation, where I was the head coach of a team in transition," Belichick said. "Frankly, it wasn't a really good experience for me or for them."

            Belichick was the Jets coach for one week in February 1997, when Parcells was trying to get out of a contract with the New England Patriots. While the dispute was being resolved, the Jets hired Belichick to coach the team and named Parcells a consultant. Tagliabue eventually intervened, ruling that Parcells could coach the team and that the Patriots would be compensated with four draft choices for losing their coach.

            Parcells then replaced Belichick as head coach, though a clause was worked into both coaches' contracts that assured Belichick he would take over if Parcells resigned or was fired.

            Along with becoming the new coach after Parcells's resignation, Belichick also was given ultimate power over all football-related decisions. Parcells, who has three years left on his contract, will remain for an undisclosed term as chief operating officer, but had pledged Monday that he would have very little to do with the operation of the team on or off the field.



            Kraft is a diiiiiiirtttty bird.
            McDaniels has been talking a lot lately about how each person is unique and shouldn't be compared to others. Then he goes and does his best Bill Belichick impersonation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

              They ignored it just like they do all over the League.
              They ignored it because it never happened.

              You sound exactly like a Pats fan. You should really just join them and get it over with already.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                Morals and NFL football is an oxymoron and that also makes you a loser.
                No, cheating and being a despicable human being makes you a loser.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Shade View Post

                  The "piping in sound" thing was debunked like a million years ago. There is zero evidence that the Colts have cheated. New England, on the other hand, not only cheats, but they treat everyone like ****.

                  Anyone defending what McDaniels did needs to take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror.
                  Oh? So he had an offer he hadn't signed yet and made it known that he hadn't made up his mind. He got a better offer that allowed him to stay where he was comfortable and play for a man like Kraft instead of man like Irsay. I don't think that was much of a decision to make. He was only going to get this one last chance to be a HC and he decided it was better for him to stay in New England. As Polian and Ballard basically said, there is nothing to see here, people say "no" all of the time and they will just move on. We should all do the same and forget about it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                    Oh? So he had an offer he hadn't signed yet and made it known that he hadn't made up his mind. He got a better offer that allowed him to stay where he was comfortable and play for a man like Kraft instead of man like Irsay. I don't think that was much of a decision to make. He was only going to get this one last chance to be a HC and he decided it was better for him to stay in New England. As Polian and Ballard basically said, there is nothing to see here, people say "no" all of the time and they will just move on. We should all do the same and forget about it.
                    This tells me all I need to know about what morals you possess.

                    I'm embarrassed to have someone like you represent our franchise.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Shade View Post

                      This tells me all I need to know about what morals you possess.

                      I'm embarrassed to have someone like you represent our franchise.
                      My morals are just fine, thank you. If I had signed a contract, that would have been it. If the Colts didn't expect the Pats to put a fight and offer probably more money than the Colts were willing to pay, they were fools. The blame isn't on the Pats or McDaniels but on the Colts for not thinking this one through and I think you will find most of the high end talking heads saying just that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bluboy View Post

                        My morals are just fine, thank you. If I had signed a contract, that would have been it. If the Colts didn't expect the Pats to put a fight and offer probably more money than the Colts were willing to pay, they were fools. The blame isn't on the Pats or McDaniels but on the Colts for not thinking this one through and I think you will find most of the high end talking heads saying just that.


                        Go away.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post

                          Anyone who had done any form of live broadcast production could have told you that the "smoking gun" that was used for proof on that was a audio glitch on the broadcast, it was that obvious. IIRC, the same audio glitch that Pats fans were holding up as "proof" returned in a New England home game on CBS about a year later....
                          I know that. You know that. 99.99% of the real world knows that.

                          I just want to see how little boy blu dances around it.

                          Comment


                          • In retrospect, the colts really should have seen this coming... Kraft would be reluctant to let Indy hire away his popcorn vendor, let alone his OC.

                            i don’t know he’s so hot to keep McDaniels if he goes to any other nfl team.

                            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


                            • https://twitter.com/DanGrazianoESPN/...05068900265984

                              Dan Graziano‏Verified account @DanGrazianoESPN 13m13 minutes ago

                              More
                              Source says agent Bob LaMonte, who represents Josh McDaniels, Colts GM Chris Ballard and many other coaches/execs, is terminating his relationship with McDaniels. http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0752957927832162658-4 …


                              Wow. Guess that shows just how badly McDouche screwed up when his agent is firing HIM.
                              "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


                              • Everyone give a standing ovation to Ballard. He's the ****ing man. Way to stick it to them and stand up for the franchise.
                                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X