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

Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

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

  • #31
    Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
    I completely agree with you.

    The only difference is that, unlike many (most?) here, I will wait to see EVIDENCE.

    right now this is true:

    Unnamed sources claim an unnamed person who might have been affilliated with the Patriots might have taped a practice, the taped that might have been viewed by the Patriots.

    The Patriots and the NFL say the allegation is absolutely false.

    If you hate the Patriots I can understand that you think that they are guilty until proven innocent, that where there's smoke there is fire, and we should all be up in arms and angry. This isn't a crime, but our anger in a small way should be like that we directed right away at those Duke LaCrosse rapists...

    oops...

    Sometimes where there's smoke, the smoke was just made up crap, and while lots of people rushed to believe there must be a fire, it wasn't there.

    Sometimes the presumption of innocence is shown to be an important philosophy.

    When someone says "My name is XYZ, I saw this and I did this. This is what I know". Then the story will warrant the attention it is getting. Right now it is tabloid National Equirer-type journalism at its worst.
    I was skeptical from the beginning about the Duke case, and I don't think many people outside of the media and the local people screaming about it being a race issue were quick to condemn. I heard and read more skepticism than I ever did condemnation.

    The problem with your analogy isn't that this issue isn't criminal and the Duke case was, it's that the story would have been different for the Duke boys if they had actually been BUSTED doing the same thing earlier in the year. THAT is the point that makes people rush to judge. If one or all of them had prior convictions for sexual assault under similar circumstances, the ability to give the benefit of the doubt would've been severely diminished.

    Kinda hard to claim a presumption of innocence when the proof of GUILT has already been established.

    Even after all of that, I'm willing to wait until there is evidence that they cheated further before condemning them. I'm not saying they should start stripping Super Bowl titles, but I'm not presuming that this is a case of tabloid journalism either. I have no illusions that this is a case of a disgruntled employee and the mean old tabloid press beating up on the poor innocent Patriots. That set of beliefs is just as flawed as rushing to convict.



    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      I'll just say one more thing, that I'm kinda surprised hasn't been brought up yet:

      The Pats, who were heavy underdogs to the Rams, won Super Bowl XXXVI on February 3, 2002. The game was originally scheduled to be played on January 27, but was pushed back due to...9/11. Does anyone else remember people saying how it would be cool if a team called the PATRIOTS could win as a huge underdog in light of such a tragedy? I sure do. In fact, I was amongst that group.

      Anyway, just a small reason the NFL may have wanted to keep this under wraps. It was a feel-good story for all of America at the time for the Pats to beat the Rams.

      EDIT: I found this on Wikipedia:





      I guess the NFL wanted the Saints to win after Katrina..oh wait, the Saints actually aren't as good as everyone thought. I don't believe in conspiracy theories when it comes to the NFL. Belichick has already been warned by Goodell that he will be suspended for a year if further evidence comes up regarding them recording other teams. I really think you are grasping for something here, and there just isn't anything there. The NFL has nothing to do with the Patriots beating the Rams. The allegations that they recorded their final walk through may..but until there is any evidence to prove this, then it's all just speculation. Note: If any valid proof surfaces about this, I will be the first to condemn the Patriots. It would be very disheartening as a fan.
      Last edited by Moses; 02-03-2008, 04:13 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

        Originally posted by Shade View Post
        I'll just say one more thing, that I'm kinda surprised hasn't been brought up yet:

        The Pats, who were heavy underdogs to the Rams, won Super Bowl XXXVI on February 3, 2002. The game was originally scheduled to be played on January 27, but was pushed back due to...9/11.
        Also due to 9/11, the entire event had stepped-up security. I remember stories about coaches and media members were being denied access to areas because they left their ID in the hotel or something like that, so they pulled a "Do you know who I am" scene to no avail.

        It's kind of hard to believe that security would allow someone to be at practice who was not supposed to be there. Well, maybe they could have gotten in earlier legally and HID... but then...

        It's kind of hard to believe that the RAMS would allow someone to be at practice who was not supposed to be there. Coaches have been paranoid about their practives being watched since way before the first Super Bowl was played. Retired coach Howard Schellenberger was interviewed a few days ago by a local paper and told how George Allen would get his coaches to watch opponents' practices with binoculars. Every coach has guys to check the whole arena for spies, so this story seems strange on first principles.
        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


        • #34
          Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
          It's kind of hard to believe that the RAMS would allow someone to be at practice who was not supposed to be there.
          That's the first thing I thought of when I read the story. You don't simply just waltz in to a teams practice facility with a camcorder on the final freaking practice before the biggest freaking game of the year.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

            Not to throw water on the fire, but did Vinateri cheat when he split the uprights for the winning kick?

            Hey, I am far from being a Pats fan, but I find it funny that all of this has come up the week of the Super Bowl 42 - some 6 years later.

            I think this has become more of a PR ploy for SB42. Either that, or some of the 1972 Miami Dolphins players are starting vicious rumors. Even Jaws doesnt think its a big deal, and as an NFL sportscaster, I think he is one of the best. Plus, he actually played the game. He knows the ropes.

            Here again, I dislike the Patriots, but Im kind of rooting for them in a way, because its still tough for the actual players to go out there and make the plays on the field in the heat of the moment. I appreciate perfection, because isnt that what every team (no matter what sport), tries to achieve.

            And we are witnessing it.

            OTOH, Im also rooting for Peyton's little bro Eli. Do you think Peyton has given Eli any pointers as to what the Patriots will try to do? I think he probably has. Is that considered cheating?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

              If the 2001-2002 Super Bowl was won by taping a walk-through, Belichick should be fired and the trophy taken away.

              I actually think that both would happen...

              But serious allegations that deserve serious punishment require real evidence and not just unnamed sources and tabloid journalism
              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


              • #37
                Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                So you're not accusing him of anything but you are accusing him of everything, right?

                He missed much of the past 5 seasons with major injuries. Maybe he avoided wear and tear.

                Or maybe we should just assume that guys like Jerry Rice, Darryl Green, Clay Matthews, Reggie Miller... who all played into or near their 40s, must be on HGH, right?

                Is that what you are saying? geesh...

                His career was on the decline due to repeated injuries. 5 years ago he was acquired by the Dolphins for a 5th round pick, and it's amazing to see him fill in at starter after Colvin went down.

                great guy, too:

                NFL Man of Year 1994
                Started The Junior Seau Foundation in 1992
                Funded two youth athletic fields in San Diego
                elected to the National Boys and Girls Clubs Hall of Fame for his charity work with them
                Founded the Scholars of Excellence Program, has awarded >200 scholarships to college-bound students



                I don't think such a drive-by cheap shot is warranted.
                Like I wrote "he is one of my favorites" and I'm not accusing but he has missed practice time like the last 10 years. Now he's around 40 and showing up feeling like a kid. You don't have to outline his achievements: Seau like I wrote is "one of my favorites" and I'm more of a team guy then a player guy.

                Rice and Reggie sure weren't running faster, playing longer minutes, going to every single practice and they weren't pledged with injuries for the last 5 years either. However Bonds started smacking more HR's and Clemens fastball got faster then ever before when he reached 40. Anyway, I'm not trying to convict the guy... I"m just saying...
                Every guy listed, excluding Bonds, are my favorite players ever. You could cap out this posting count with achievements and charity these players have done. Even if they did do any "banned substances" it wouldn't change my feelings, a about them.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                  Seau is much much slower and also a lot less powerful than he was at 28. Smartness is what is keeping him in there.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                    If the 2001-2002 Super Bowl was won by taping a walk-through, Belichick should be fired and the trophy taken away.
                    Too bad they didn't tape the warm ups before the game because they would have seen the exact route to Plax that won the game.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                      Wasn't so easy this time around.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                        I just found out that this is not the first time that Arlen Specter threatened the NFL with an investigation and used the antitrust exemption as his weapon.

                        His last cause: he thought the NFL was unfairly punishing Terrell Owens with a 4-game suspension a few years ago.

                        No joke!

                        This is the mindset of the Senator from Pennsylvania.


                        ------------

                        Sen. Specter Defends Terrell Owens
                        By Associated Press

                        Tue Nov 29, 12:14 AM

                        PHILADELPHIA - Sen. Arlen Specter accused the National Football League and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly and said he might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.

                        Specter said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the all-pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.

                        "It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws," Specter said, though some other legal experts disagreed.

                        The Eagles suspended Owens on Nov. 5 for four games without pay for "conduct detrimental to the team", and deactivated him with pay on Sunday after the suspension ended.

                        Arbitrator Richard Bloch said last week the team's actions were supported by the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association.

                        "The arbitrator's decision is consistent with our collective bargaining agreement, and it simply enforced the terms of the player's contract," Greg Aiello, an NFL spokesman, said Monday.

                        "To have an antitrust violation, you have to have a contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade," said Robert McCormick, a law professor at Michigan State University.

                        Matthew J. Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, said, "We're in the labor arena, not antitrust."

                        Specter emphasized that he was "not a supporter of Terrell Owens."

                        "I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages."

                        But Specter said, "I do not believe, personally, that it is appropriate to punish him (by forcing him to sit out the rest of the season). He's not committed a crime, he's committed a breach of contract. And what they're doing against him is vindictive."

                        ___

                        Information from: The Philadelphia Inquirer:

                        http://www.comcast.net/sports/index....29/273105.html
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                          Not letting TO play 4 games is an entirely different thing a team cheating and having an eeftect on the outcome of a game in which Millions of dollars were wagered, not to mention the financial impacts for the teams involved. The financial loss or gain from team apparel/memoribilia has to be HUGE $'s from a superbowl loss/win.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                            the point is, a lot of people say

                            "this must be serious if a senator wants to get involved"

                            when the fact is that he is a rabid fan who wanted the same level of involvement when he thought a player on his team was being unfairly treated for acting like a Ron Artest.

                            There may be something here, and the NFL will find out. They want to talk to the fired video guy. But we should not take Senator Specter's word on how serious the situation is.

                            He has cried "wolf" over nothing in the past.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                              Originally posted by Mal View Post
                              Yeah, who cares if a team potentially cheated their way to a Super Bowl victory. Certainly not the St. Loius Rams. Who cares.
                              I am first and foremost a Colts fan and not an NFL fan.

                              From a league perspective, I can see why this is a big deal.

                              My first question on any NFL news is "how does this affect the balance of power between the Colts and the Patriots?" If it doesn't have any impact (in my perception) then I tend to just disregard it.

                              I guess that makes me somewhat provincial as a sports fan, but it is what it is.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Report says Patriots taped St. Louis before SB 36

                                Close, PacerTom, but not really.

                                The TO example doesn't work because he never did investigate it. He was probably talking about sports with a reporter and thinking out loud about the situation. Nothing came of it.

                                In the Patriots case he's interviewing Goodell and possibly having hearings. If he decides Goodell is telling the truth and that's all there is to it, then the situations are similar.

                                But if it goes further then the two incidents have nothing in common except the two parties are employed by the same company.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X