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

Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

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

  • #46
    Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Your now saying that video taping the other teams signals isn't for 'information gathering purposes'?

    What the hell is it for, to practice the art of video recording?

    Or how about to do their part in fighting unemployment?

    Or better yet is it connected some way in helping fight global warming?

    If you knew he knew the rule, then why waste all this time saying it was a misinterpretation? If he blantantly knew that he was breaking the rule, then why aren't you blasting him for it?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

      Originally posted by pacertom View Post
      One of the main theories as to why Goodell so stupidly destroyed the information provided by the Patriots has always been that perhaps Belichick presented his specific video evidence of several other teams taping the Patriots. Goodell did not want a half dozen spygates on his hands, so both he and the Patriots are falling on the sword and keeping quiet. Sooner or later though, if Specter doesn't give up, then the Patriots may be inclined to reveal what they know about other teams doing this, though Goodell probably destroyed the evidence that they had.
      WOW, That theory must have been developed by a Patriots Fan......

      I'm not getting in the middle of you and Since86, you guys can have your little spat, but I must say, that particular theory is hilarious.

      Now back to your regularly scheduled

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

        Originally posted by Gyron View Post
        WOW, That theory must have been developed by a Patriots Fan......
        No, it has been proposed many times by national sportswriters. Here's a recent column by Mike Florio at profootballtalk.com:

        http://profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

        POSTED 11:30 p.m. EST, February 23, 2008

        TAPING PRACTICES IS NOTHING NEW

        Regardless of whether the Patriots did or didn't videotape the Rams' walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, it's not the first time that such allegations have been raised.

        As Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports wrote in the days following the discovery that the Pats were taping defensive coaching signals during a Week One game against the Jets, the Broncos were suspected at one time of secretly videotaping Chargers practices.

        Wrote Cole: "The San Diego Chargers increased their security several years ago at a hill overlooking the practice field at the team facility during weeks when they played the Denver Broncos. Why? It turns out Broncos coach Mike Shanahan had been hiring spies to videotape the Chargers practices. The NFL had been aware of it for several years (at least one NFL official had seen one of the tapes), but didn't step in because it was considered a team issue."

        Such stories tend to support the rumor that Patriots coach Bill Belichick included with the materials surrendered to the league extensive evidence of cheating by other teams.

        Further bolstering the belief that the Pats weren't the only team doing what they were caught doing are the comments of former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson. The Boston Herald has posted the transcript of a WFAN interview that we first mentioned on September 29, during which Johnson said that the videotaping of defensive coaching signals was a widespread practice.

        "I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league," Johnson said on September 28. "Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you're going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace."

        And this kind stuff is nothing new. Way back in 1967, Lee Grosscup wrote an item for Sport magazine that delved into the issue of spying in football.

        The bigger issue with what the Patriots did against the Jets is that the Pats continued to do something that the league had specifically told teams not to do, and that the Jets decided to make a sufficiently big deal about it that it set off a media firestorm.

        The staggering penalty applied to the Patriots ($250,000 fine and loss of a first-round pick) and coach Bill Belichick ($500,000 fine) created the impression that this really was a big deal, regardless of the fact that it had been going on for an extended period of time.

        And by hitting the Pats so hard, the league backed itself into a corner. If the videotaping of defensive coaching signals compels such a harsh sanction, evidence that such things have been occurring on a widespread basis would potentially shake public confidence in the sport.

        But at a time when folks are chasing (as we think they should) the question of whether the Patriots cheated in connection with Super Bowl XXXVI or any other postseason game since 2001, we think that resources and effort also should be devoted to exploring whether and to what extent there has been cheating by other teams.

        Maybe that's why teams like the Steelers and Eagles aren't willing to blame spying on losses to the Pats in the 2004 AFC title game and Super Bowl XXXIX, respectively. Maybe the problem in both cases isn't that either of the teams within Senator Arlen Specter's territory were the victims of skullduggery. Maybe the problem is that they didn't take enough steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by practices that were an open secret prior to Week One of the 2007 regular season.
        Originally posted by Our Forrest Gump
        If he blantantly (?)knew that he was breaking the rule, then why aren't you blasting him for it?
        Gee, Forrest, reading is fundamental. Catch this high praise from me:

        He made a lame-brained stupid dumb mistake and was punished severely for it, and deservedly so.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-25-2008, 04:49 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

          Ok, I hadn't read that one.

          Point to you. I'll go back to the counting thread now....

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

            If not believing in his supposed misinterpretation, or atleast not believing it yet pushing the case for it, makes me mentally retarded, then I'll take it.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

              Since 86, I have to agree here, he did day that bellicheck was an idiot for doing it. What else do you want?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                He's tried pushing the case on how he could have read the rule wrong now for weeks.

                If I think someone intentionally cheated, how in the world do I defend them and try to find a way to justify it. (Justify isn't the right word, but it will work for now.)

                Every negative piece that comes out on them, he refutes. Every single one. What BB has done for the past seven years is undefendable IMHO. He knowingly broke the rule, was caught more than once by other teams, had his camera-man kicked off the sidelines, recieved a memo from the league reminding teams the rule, and then got busted for it afterwards.

                There is no 'but,' in this situation and that's exactly the position he's been taking. Yes he did it, and shouldn't have done it, BUT this is why.......

                I think the biggest thing is when he started calling me an outright liar. Everyone who reads this board knows he tried telling us that they only did it once, and that was during the NY Jets game when they got caught. Now he says they did it in the open, where everyone knew about it.

                Before, I made the assertion, and mistakingly attributed it to Peter King, that the league is trying to sweep the controversy under the rug. Now he brings links about the league destroying the tapes because it implimented other teams and he didn't want the media to find that info out.

                So basically, now he's pushing that the league is sweeping it under the rug.

                He goes from one stance to the next, whichever benefits NE, and personally I find it insulting, especially when he takes it to a personal level.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  He's tried pushing the case on how he could have read the rule wrong now for weeks.

                  If I think someone intentionally cheated, how in the world do I defend them and try to find a way to justify it. (Justify isn't the right word, but it will work for now.)

                  Every negative piece that comes out on them, he refutes. Every single one. What BB has done for the past seven years is undefendable IMHO. He knowingly broke the rule, was caught more than once by other teams, had his camera-man kicked off the sidelines, recieved a memo from the league reminding teams the rule, and then got busted for it afterwards.

                  There is no 'but,' in this situation and that's exactly the position he's been taking. Yes he did it, and shouldn't have done it, BUT this is why.......

                  I think the biggest thing is when he started calling me an outright liar. Everyone who reads this board knows he tried telling us that they only did it once, and that was during the NY Jets game when they got caught. Now he says they did it in the open, where everyone knew about it.

                  Before, I made the assertion, and mistakingly attributed it to Peter King, that the league is trying to sweep the controversy under the rug. Now he brings links about the league destroying the tapes because it implimented other teams and he didn't want the media to find that info out.

                  So basically, now he's pushing that the league is sweeping it under the rug.

                  He goes from one stance to the next, whichever benefits NE, and personally I find it insulting, especially when he takes it to a personal level.
                  '86, the option is a wonderful thing.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I find it insulting, especially when he takes it to a personal level.
                    It got personal because you continually attributed to me comments and ideas that I had not expressed on this or any other forum and insisted that they were true.

                    I don't plan to post on this forum again.

                    The Colts used to be my second favorite NFL team, and it isn't the rivalry that has changed that, it is instead the hostility of their fan base that has dropped the entire franchise several notches in my eyes. You are now just like Raiders fans, Eagles fans, Lakers fans...
                    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

                    Working...
                    X