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

Belicheat* continues his classless ways

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

  • #76
    Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

    Originally posted by Gyron View Post
    It has nothing to do with Merriman not being a classy guy. It was stated above that the pats don't show boat, BB wouldn't allow them it was stated.

    That was an example of showboating, directly refuting what the claim was.
    I never said that the players don't ever showboat. I said that there is hell to pay when they do, so it is pretty rare.

    Players somtimes don't listen. Junior Seau showboated when he made an interception. He then remarked in the postgame interview that he knew that should not have done that. He got carried away, and now was likely going to be running some extra wind sprints in practice to pay for it.

    If a coach punishes a 12 time pro bowler, lock Hall-of-Famer, and team co-captain for showboating, I think that it makes a statement about what you will not tolerate.

    Belichick feels about players showboating about like Bob Knight does about his players mouthing off to referees. When it happens, the boss ain't happy and the player gets the message, and quickly.

    Seau has made 3 or 4 interceptions since then. He hasn't showboated again, and he hasn't tried to find somebody to lateral the ball to (another pet peeve of BB, the risky lateral).
    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


    • #77
      Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

      I have to agree that keeping Brady in and throwing as often as they were after they were ahead by 38 points was kind of risky. Anything can happen when bodies that large are flying around you and next thing you know, Brady is wheeled off with a torn ACL and you have Cassel as the starting QB. If you don't think it could happen, remember the collective gasp when Peyton was slammed the ground yesterday and was on the sidelines sniffing up the smelling salt. I don't think a Manning vs Cassel or a Brady vs Sorgi matchup would hold as much anticipation. Bottom line is that this week's game will be great, the dome will be rocking and regardless of who wins, it will be fun to watch.

      The big thing in sports is that you want your team to be relevant.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: more whining by Colts fans about the Patriots...

        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
        Maybe they were not penalized before, because Green Bay and Detroit never told the NFL that they thought Pats were cheating?

        And they never told them, why? Because they had no evidence?

        We are to believe that The NFL protected the Pats by not punishing them for something they are supposed to have done, but nobody had any evidence to support the claims that they never went to the NFL with in the first place?

        You guys are a little too far out there for even lovers of conspiracy theories to follow.

        I suppose that it must be somehting in the water at the RCA Dome.

        Admit your blind irrational hatred. Don't try to rationalize it by dreaming up vast conspiracies.
        No evidence? They caught the guy redhanded, or camerahanded, whatever you want to call it.

        Did you not read my post, and my other in the previous thread? Tey weren't turned in because there is a code that many coaches believe in, and that you don't rat on other coaches.

        They just *happen* to get caught by a former NE asst. coach? Calling SD cheaters, because Merriman got caught using 'roids, isn't much of a defense.

        Look at your starting safety. Look at your head coach. Is Merriman a cheater? Yes. But calling him out on the same thing one of your own got caught for, and when your head coach got caught cheating is one hell of a defense. "BUT MOM!!!!! HE DID IT TOO!"

        It just goes to show how stupid the defense of the organization is becoming/is. Don't want to be known as cheaters? Don't cheat. Don't want to be known as classless? Don't run up the score or taunt opposing teams. This is elementary stuff here, but something that's falling on deaf ears. Or ears that just don't give a crap.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

          The Colts are good; the Patriots are good. One team will play; one team will win. Chances are, they'll get another shot at each other. And again, one team will win.

          Peyton Manning is good; Tom Brady is good. Both will be in the Hall of Fame, with a ring(s) and MVP trophy(ies). Though both seem like reasonable human beings, they'll likely never have a cookout together with the kids. Both will hold some cool records.

          Tony Dungy is a good coach; Bill Belilchick is a good coach. Tony probably wouldn't want his kids hanging out with Bill's. One is a nice guy, the other's a jerk. You pick which.

          Running up the score? My opinion matters little. If someone doesn't like it, they'll let the Pats know one way or another. Good, bad, indifferent ... it likely won't affect my favorite team. Well, unless Dwight Freeney goes at Brady's knees.

          But I wouldn't expect that happening any time soon ... wonder why ...

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

            When the Jets spotted a Patriots on-field video assistant filming their coaching signals during a Sept. 9 game at the Meadowlands, it set into motion a passion play that could have starred another North Jersey operator, Tony Soprano. By exposing the dirty secret of his former boss, Pats coach Bill Belichick, Jets coach Eric Mangini broke a long-held code that NFL coaches live by: Don't go against the family. "If he wasn't before, Mangini's dead to Belichick now," says one head coach. "What Mangini did is a disgrace. He wouldn't be a coach in this league without Bill, and this is how he repays him."

            Commissioner Roger Goodell ruled swiftly when he found out that New England had taped defensive hand signals. He fined Belichick $500,000 and the team $250,000 and stripped the club of a high-round 2008 draft pick. It's widely believed that New England has stolen signals in this manner for years, but officials from various clubs acknowledge that the Pats are not the only team that does it. Last week's revelation doesn't mean the New England dynasty is a fraud, but it does take some shine off those three Super Bowl wins.

            It may seem absurd to think that if Belichick was blatantly violating an NFL rule -- one reenforced by two NFL memos in the last year -- the Jets should have ignored it. But last year the Lions and the Packers caught the Patriots taping and simply told them to stop without informing the league. Unlike New York, they followed the coaching fraternity's antisnitching code.
            http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...924/index.html
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: more whining by Colts fans about the Patriots...

              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
              Maybe they were not penalized before, because Green Bay and Detroit never told the NFL that they thought Pats were cheating?

              And they never told them, why? Because they had no evidence?

              We are to believe that The NFL protected the Pats by not punishing them for something they are supposed to have done, but nobody had any evidence to support the claims that they never went to the NFL with in the first place?

              You guys are a little too far out there for even lovers of conspiracy theories to follow.

              I suppose that it must be somehting in the water at the RCA Dome.

              Admit your blind irrational hatred. Don't try to rationalize it by dreaming up vast conspiracies.
              It's not a "vast consipiracy." Only Pats* fans are unable to see the evidence that is right in front of their faces.

              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
              Admit your blind irrational hatred. Don't try to rationalize it by dreaming up vast conspiracies.
              Admit your blind irrational homerism. Don't try to rationalize it by claiming vast conspiracies against your team.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                Clearly, the Lions and Packers are in on the "vast conspiracy" against NE*.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                  I don't understand this article at all. It's okay to cheat against your protege, but if he does something about it, that's wrong? Huh?

                  Mangini was just supposed to sit there and let a guy take all their signals?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: more whining by Colts fans about the Patriots...

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Tey weren't turned in because there is a code that many coaches believe in, and that you don't rat on other coaches.
                    Yeah, I've read that Mangini might be one and done when/if he leaves the Jets because he broke that code...
                    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                      I don't think teams will to wait for the "dynasty" to end to get payback. If they keep running up the score like this 4th quarters are going to get physical, and Brady is going to get hit late. There is a reason why you don't show up the other opponent aside for being a nice guy. Poor sportsmanship is contagious.
                      I'm with Arcadian on this. It is only a matter of time before a team gets sick of being humiliated and tries to hurt Brady or Moss. It isn't right but it is bound to happen if they continue doing this.
                      PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                        Shade, you said plainly and clearly that the Patriots were not punished for past cheating before only because

                        "Scandals aren't good PR"

                        Since86 has falsely ascribed to Peter King a comment that the NFL was ignoring a long-running big scandal by the Patriots and and was intent upon "sweeping it under a rug"

                        If either of your statements is right, then it assumes that the NFL knew the Pats were cheating and did nothing about it.

                        The links above show that the league absolutely knew nothing about the Green Bay and Detroit allegations. You guys have stated on numerous occasion that the league somehow unfairly favors the Patriots, and it simply is not the case. They cannot be "looking the other way at the evidence" and at the same time be not told about the evidence.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                          Shade, you said plainly and clearly that the Patriots were not punished for past cheating before only because

                          "Scandals aren't good PR"

                          Since86 has falsely ascribed to Peter King a comment that the NFL was ignoring a long-running big scandal by the Patriots and and was intent upon "sweeping it under a rug"

                          If either of your statements is right, then it assumes that the NFL knew the Pats were cheating and did nothing about it.

                          The links above show that the league absolutely knew nothing about the Green Bay and Detroit allegations. You guys have stated on numerous occasion that the league somehow unfairly favors the Patriots, and it simply is not the case. They cannot be "looking the other way at the evidence" and at the same time be not told about the evidence.
                          I never said that was the only reason they were never punished. You're taking that completely out of context. That was my response to the question "If the Pats* have cheated multiple times, why haven't they been punished?" Regardless of who did/didn't know about it, this further evidences that the Pats* have cheated more than once.

                          Besides, who's to say the league didn't find out about it later and let it go because the evidence wasn't as overwhelming as it was in the latest situation? I'm sure suspicions of similar past activity is what led to them forfeiting a first-rounder rather than a second or third-rounder on the first offense.

                          I never said that the league unfairly favors the Pats*; you're confusing me w/someone else. I simply said the Pats* are classless and have cheated more than once, which they are and have.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            I never said that was the only reason they were never punished. You're taking that completely out of context. That was my response to the question "If the Pats* have cheated multiple times, why haven't they been punished?" Regardless of who did/didn't know about it, this further evidences that the Pats* have cheated more than once.
                            I wouldn't be shocked for a second if it was true that the Pats have cheated more than once.
                            Last edited by DrBadd01; 10-29-2007, 03:49 PM.
                            PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                              On a side note, I found where the phrase popped into my mind. PK didn't say Goodell wanted to sweep it under the rug, he said Belichick did.

                              Disagreements are healthy, and the game is too important to too many people to sweep things under the rug and wait 'til they go away. That's what Belichick is doing. When he talked to his players a few days ago about this, he told them it takes two people to argue, and if he simply didn't engage the arguers, the problem would go away.
                              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...mqb/index.html

                              The league DID know they were doing it, they just weren't formally notified about it. If reporters knew and other teams knew across the league, you can bet your bottom dollar the commish's office did. They sent out a league wide memo outlining proper and improper usage of sideline camera's. Coincidence?

                              It wasn't just a rumor going around, it was known, but without the tapes/cameras in hand, how do you punish them?
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Belicheat* continues his classless ways

                                Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                                I'm a Skins fan and I didn't have a problem with it, mainly because I UNDERSTAND why he's doing it. He's just proving that he doesn't need the other teams defensive plays to win by an AVERAGE of 26 points.

                                People keep talking about the cheating, and now the running up of the score, and that will just make him continue to do it.
                                1) You don't know he hasn't found other workarounds or hasn't had them in place for years.

                                2) Maybe he should have convinced himself of that too. Nixon didn't need to break into Watergate either, but he still did. Does the not needing to part make it all okay???


                                If someone is caught cheating it means that THEY THINK, not us, that they need to do it. If Bill is so smart and thought he needed to get around a rule he'd already been busted for previously, what's that say about what he thought of his fair chances?

                                Bill famously tried to inject himself into the physical portion of a game when he intentionally blocked Harrison as he tried to return to the field. That and the twice busted camera says it all about him. I'd be more surprised to find out he wasn't still bending the rules than to find out he was.


                                If you're not cheating you're not trying? Hardly. If you aren't cheating then you probably have enough confidence to know you don't need to and/or enough pride to not do it. Bill let us all know where he falls in that range. We didn't say it, he did, loud and clear for all to hear.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X