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

The Saints are Dirty

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

  • The Saints are Dirty

    Thankfully the first week is almost over and we can finally start building anticipation for the game.

    We have this news...

    League fines Saints’ McCray $20K for hits on Favre

    Posted: January 29th, 2010 | Jason La Canfora | Tags: Bobby McCray, Brett Favre, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, NFC Championship Game
    The NFL fined Saints DE Bobby McCray a total of $20,000 for two incidents involving unnecessary roughness, according to a league source.
    In the first quarter of last Sunday’s NFC Championship Game, McCray unnecessarily delivered a blow to Vikings QB Brett Favre, who was out of the play. Additionally, during the third quarter, McCray delivered a blow to Favre’s knee area.

    Followed by this....

    Gregg Williams suggests the Saints want to injure Manning

    Posted by Mike Florio on January 28, 2010 8:48 AM ET
    During their march through the playoffs, the New Orleans Saints have battered and bruised (and nearly broken) two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks -- Kurt Warner of the Cardinals and Brett Favre of the Vikings.

    They're now setting their sights on a third man whose oversized forehead eventually will be memorialized in bronze.

    Defensive coordinator Gregg Williams recently told a Nashville radio station that the Saints plan to rattle Colts quarterback Peyton Manning by hitting him whenever they can, and that the goal is to knock him out of the game.

    "This guy's got a great clock in his head," Williams told 104.5 The Zone, via ESPN.com. "The big thing is that he throws the ball so early that we're going to have to do a good job of finding ways to get to him and when we do get to him we're going to have to make sure he gets a couple 'remember me' shots when we get there."

    The Saints applied several "remember me" shots to Favre on Sunday, prompting many a Vikings fan to utter a phrase that for broadcast television purposes would be edited to sound like "forget you." One such hit to Favre's legs didn't draw a flag, even though NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira admitted last night that a roughing the passer penalty should have been called.

    And Williams won't be reeling in his troops for the Super Bowl. Instead, it sounds like he's willing to risk a few 15-yard walk-offs if it means that Manning eventually will be carted off the field.

    "When you put too much of that type of worry on a warrior's mind, he doesn't play all out," Williams said. "If it happens, it happens. And the only thing you'd like for me to say is that if it happens you hope he doesn't get back up and play again."

    You hope he doesn't get back up and play again. (We wonder what Archie thinks about his former team's objectives?)

    In other words, "We'll gladly trade a penalty or two if it means that we get to see Curtis Painter instead of Peyton Manning."

    In other words, the NFL should consider fining not only the players when dirty hits are applied to quarterbacks, but also their coaches.
    Forget this 'America's Team' crap and the Katrina pity - the Saints are as dirty as the rundown city they play in.

  • #2
    Re: The Saints are Dirty

    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    Thankfully the first week is almost over and we can finally start building anticipation for the game.

    We have this news...




    Followed by this....


    Forget this 'America's Team' crap and the Katrina pity - the Saints are as dirty as the rundown city they play in.
    Completely unnecessary.

    This is offensive and wrong on about 47 different levels.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Saints are Dirty

      And it continues...

      Saints fined $30,000 by NFL for hits versus Vikings

      Posted by Chip Scoggins
      Last update: January 29, 2010 - 9:21 PM

      Three New Orleans Saints players were fined a total of $30,000 for four different hits in Sunday's NFC Championship game. Three of those hits were delivered to Brett Favre.
      As we mentioned earlier Bobby McCray was fined $20,000 for two hits on Favre. The first came after Favre handed off to Percy Harvin in the first quarter. McCray then hit Favre in the knees on his interception in the third quarter, causing Favre to suffer a left ankle injury.

      Defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove was fined $5,000 for unnecessary roughness when he lifted Favre up and slammed him to the turf in the third quarter.

      Finally, Jonathan Casillas was fined $5,000 for unnecessary roughness when he hit punt returner Darius Reynaud after he had downed the ball.
      America's Team!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Saints are Dirty

        This is all just hype before the game. They're riding into the superbowl with a ton of confidence. If anything, this is just going to motivate our "O" line to protect manning even better than before. I'm going to jump out on a limb here and say that Manning will not be sacked, and will not throw an interception the whole game.


        And I agree, the saints play dirty, and they certainly are not "America's Team" (The other part was totally uncalled for)
        Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Saints are Dirty

          Originally posted by pianoman View Post
          This is all just hype before the game.
          I agree they're trying to get inside Indy's head, but it's clearly more than just talk. Their deplorable cheap shots against Minnesota proved that.
          Last edited by Lance George; 01-30-2010, 09:20 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Saints are Dirty

            Who cares. I bet all the defensive linemen the colts play always say that to the colts anyway. Besides, that's the point of their game. It's irrelevant.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Saints are Dirty

              This actually helps the colts and shows the lack of experience from the Saints. If I was Caldwall I would post this up on the cork board and let my linemen see it.

              I mean how stupid do you have to be. Not only do you make your intentions known to the opposing team but also to the refs that were humilated for the non-call in the previous NFC game. I would bet money that the Saints will get 3 personal fouls in this game for hitting Manning.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 01-30-2010, 11:28 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Saints are Dirty

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                Completely unnecessary.

                This is offensive and wrong on about 47 different levels.
                Ever been to New Orleans ?? It is a dirty, rundown city. Before the hurricane.

                That said, nothing like giving the refs a little something extra to keep an eye open for. I doubt that any of their talk puts fear in Manning - or anyone else on the team.

                45-14.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Saints are Dirty

                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                  45-14 (+ 14 meaningless points late in the game as we run out the clock) 45-28 .
                  Fixed

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Saints are Dirty

                    I guess Bullitt is "dirty" too then

                    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...it-on-sanchez/

                    No, I don't think any of those plays were dirty, to be honest. Just football. Without the new guidlines to protect the QB, none of the hits would have ever benn discussed. It was stupid for the coach to suggest that he wants his players to hit the opposing quarterback, like coaches of all the other 31 teams want to do also but don't say it. He gained nothing by saying it, other than closer scrutiny.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: The Saints are Dirty

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      I guess Bullitt is "dirty" too then

                      http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...it-on-sanchez/

                      No, I don't think any of those plays were dirty, to be honest. Just football. Without the new guidlines to protect the QB, none of the hits would have ever benn discussed. It was stupid for the coach to suggest that he wants his players to hit the opposing quarterback, like coaches of all the other 31 teams want to do also but don't say it. He gained nothing by saying it, other than closer scrutiny.
                      Did you read the entire quote by chance.
                      Bullit wasn't trying to hurt Sanchez and he didn't see the handoff which is understandable given their play action passes..

                      On the other hand you have Saint coahes and players saying that they will try to hurt Manning with illegal hits. There's a big difference there.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Saints are Dirty

                        They can say whatever they want, the fact is Peyton's jersey rarely gets dirty and the Saints D is a joke compared to the Jets.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Saints are Dirty

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          Forget this 'America's Team' crap and the Katrina pity - the Saints are as dirty as the rundown city they play in.
                          I agree. Haven't bought any of the hype all year. In fact, every time I see a game played in the Superdome, I remember all the atrocities that the residents of that city committed against each other when they should've been banding together. All I can think about is, "I wonder how many people died there." Shoulda just bulldozed the whole city after Katrina. I wouldn't go to that city if I won a all-inclusive trip.

                          Don't really care about the trashtalking, it just shows how dumb they are. Not taking them for granted, but I'm confident in the Colts.

                          Oh, to be clear, I like Drew Brees, and I like quite a few of the other Saints players. Pretty much like the head coach too.



                          RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Saints are Dirty

                            We heard this same ****** from the Jets as well and now their top players are gearing up to play in the pro bowl. The Saints defense is a joke. They barely got by the Vikings. Let 'em talk.
                            Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Saints are Dirty

                              New Orleans:

                              One problem that confronted Maj. Gen. Benjamin F. Butler on his occupation of New Orleans in April of 1862, was the abuse his soldiers endured from Confederate women. Bitterly resentful of the Union occupation, whenever any of Butler's men were present they would contemptuously gather in their skirts, cross streets, flee rooms, cast hateful glances, or make derisive comments. Some spat on soldiers' uniforms, while teaching their children to do the same. One woman emptied a chamber pot on Capt. David C. Farragut.

                              The women hoped their actions would force an incident serious enough to incite paroled Confederates to revolt. Butler's men showed remarkable restraint against the insults, but he realized that it was only a matter of time until one of them was pressed too far. He dealt with the problem on May 15 by issuing General Orders No. 28, carefully worded to be self-enforcing:
                              "As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subjected to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous noninterference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation."
                              The insults stopped when the women learned they would be treated as common whores for demeaning a man wearing a U.S. army uniform.
                              http://www.civilwarhome.com/butlerwomanorder.htm
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X