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:
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

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

Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

    I feel bad for Bretts mom pretty bad yr for her kids


    • #47
      Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

      Brett Favre Files Retirement Papers Again.By Michael David Smith
      NFL Writer
      Text SizeAAAPrint this page|EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on LifestreamBrett Favre has said once again that he's retiring.

      And maybe this time he really means it.

      Alex Marvez of reports that Favre has already filed his retirement papers with the NFL. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed the news to The Associated Press on Monday.

      That doesn't mean he's definitely, retiring, though: He has filed retirement papers in the past, only to return. So, given Favre's track record, it's no sure thing that he's done playing football.

      But all indications are that he has no desire to keep playing after his 20th NFL season ended in disappointment, with his NFL record streak of consecutive games started coming to an end; with the Vikings finishing in last place; and with Favre getting a $50,000 fine from the NFL after he was accused of sexual harassment. It looks like Favre is done.

      Favre filed retirement papers with the NFL following the 2008 season, which Favre played with the Jets. He then had to be reinstated prior to signing with the Vikings for the 2009 season.


      • #48
        Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

        I LOL'ed


        • #49
          Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

          I saw a funny tweet after the Bears game:

          Favre threw his remote at the tv after the Packers win but it bounced off of his outstretched coffee table and was intercepted by his dog.


          • #50
            Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread


            All| Keywords| News| Shop| Photo| Events| Video| Audio|Web| more
            ArchiveAutosHomesJobsWeatherYellow PagesSearch: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 Tampa 66.0º Fair Sports RSS Text Size Email Print Share Twitter Facebook MySpace More Destinations... TBO > Sports
            Jenn Sterger sues manager over Brett Favre texts

            By NEIL JOHNSON | The Tampa Tribune

            Published: March 16, 2011

            Updated: 03/16/2011 02:16 pm

            Related Links

            Read the complaint (pdf)
            Favre fined $50,000
            NFL looks into allegations
            Favre admits voicemails
            TAMPA - The Gaither High School graduate at the epicenter of allegations involving former NFL quarterback Brett Favre and a series of racy messages and lewd photos is suing her manager, seeking to get back copies of the texts and e-mails.

            Jenn Sterger's lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Hillsborough County circuit court, also asks a judge to invalidate a book agreement with manager Phillip Reese.

            Sterger contends Reese, who runs the PR/PR public relations agency in New York, plans to use the e-mails, texts and other digital communications from Favre in a book of his own.

            Reese could not be reached for comment.

            The lawsuit also claims Sterger never intended Reese or her then-attorney to have full use of the material.

            The agreement calls for the formation of a corporation called Game of Inches LLC to pursue economic opportunities, including a book about the alleged incident with Favre and Sterger's dealings with the National Football League.

            Sterger first achieved a level of Internet celebrity in 2005 when, wearing a low-cut blouse and a cowboy hat, she was shown on national television rooting for Florida State University against University of Miami.

            Her fame skyrocketed to stratospheric levels last year when the website Deadspin broke a story that Favre had allegedly sent Sterger text messages and lewd photos while he was quarterback for the New York Jets and she was a game-day host for the team in 2008.

            Deadspin said it paid a third party for the texts and photos it posted, which Reese confirmed during a December interview on the Dan Patrick radio show.

            The texts and photos did not come from Sterger, Reese said during the interview.

            The Deadspin posting included texts and voicemails allegedly from Favre, including several lewd photos said to be of the quarterback.

            In the radio interview, Reese said the contact between Favre and Sterger continued through the entire football season but centered around Jets home games. Sterger only worked for the team during home games.

            An NFL investigation didn't find Favre violated the league's conduct rules, but the league fined the quarterback $50,000 for not cooperating fully.


            • #51
              Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

              How the Brett Favre scandal derailed Jenn Sterger's dream
              By ANNIE KARNI

              Last Updated: 9:58 AM, April 10, 2011

              Posted: 1:06 AM, April 10, 2011

              Comments: 27 More Print EXCLUSIVE
              "I'm going back to the hotel . . . to just chill . . . I wanted to have you come over tonight. Send me a text, I'd love to see you tonight," the married Favre said in a voice mail.

              After Sterger declined to be set up on a date with Favre, she allegedly received photos of his penis.

              Deadspin said it had obtained the materials from a third party.

              Reese said he was informed of the story the night before it went live.

              "I knew it was going to be an absolute disaster for everyone involved," he said.

              His advice to his client: Cooperate with the NFL investigation, and keep your lips sealed to the press. She did exactly that.

              "Everyone said Jenn was in it for the exposure and the money," Reese said. "I thought, if she doesn't do any interviews and take any undignified deals, she can't be viewed like that."

              Reese said he and Sterger together turned down $300,000 worth of offers.

              "Someone who worked with a bunch of Tiger Woods mistresses wanted to do a collaboration on paid opportunities for interviews," Reese said. "Someone else wanted Jenn to host an event with a porn star."

              That same month, Sterger lost her job at Versus, purportedly because of "anemic" ratings.

              Favre was fined $50,000 for failing to cooperate with the NFL probe, but the league said it could not determine that he violated its conduct policy.

              "An NFL star player was given preferential treatment," said Sterger's lawyer, Joseph Conway. "[The] decision is an affront to all females and shows once again that, despite tough talk, the NFL remains the good-old-boys league."

              Sterger and Reese formed their own firm, Game of Inches LLC, court papers say, and started work on a tell-all book, as well as a reality-TV show.

              "I was in talks with a production company to do a pilot, and I found funding," Reese said.

              But the plans fell through when Sterger abruptly sev ered ties with Reese last month and began talking with the Susan Blond p.r. firm, which reps Naomi Campbell and Sandra Lee.

              She sued Reese in Florida's Hillsborough Country Circuit Court for the return of materials for the tell-all. She charged in papers that Reese was "attempting to capitalize personally on the Favre story."

              Sterger no longer wants to write the book, according to the suit.

              She now lives in Brooklyn and has been looking for work for months.

              This week, Sterger is set to spill her side of the story for the first time -- but the interview comes with strings attached.

              She has taped a two-part sitdown with "Good Morning America," set to air Tuesday and Wednesday. In exchange, the network agreed to hook Sterger up with a TV job, sources told The Post.

              A spokesman for ABC denied Sterger was offered any job for her story.

              Sterger declined multiple interview requests.

              Reese said he wouldn't comment on the claims in the lawsuit or his messy break-up with Sterger.

              "I wish her all the best in her future endeavors," he said.

              Read more:


              • #52
                Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

                There's a wacky rumor that Grandpa Favre may join the Eagles



                Glazer: Eagles say there’s no interest in Favre
                Posted by Mike Florio on July 24, 2011, 12:57 PM EDT

                Getty ImagesLast night, Howard Eskin of WIP laid the foundation for the Fourth Annual Brett Favre Unretirement, reporting that the Eagles possibly would sign the 41-year-old to back up Mike Vick.

                Today, Vick said he’s fine with that possibility.

                Most recently, Jay Glazer of FOX has reported, citing two unnamed Eagles sources, that the Eagles aren’t interested in Favre. Glazer’s precise words were “emphatic no.”

                That said, it’s never all that clear when the Eagles are or aren’t telling the truth, either on or off the record. In this case, they could be trying to preserve Kevin Kolb’s trade value by perpetuating the notion that they will keep him if they can’t get what they want for him. If the Cardinals (or whoever) believe that the Eagles already have decided to move on from Kolb to the point that they’ve lined up a graybearded replacement, then it could be harder for the Eagles to get what they want from the Cardinals, as Marvin Hamlisch’s famous tune plays in the background.

                This doesn’t mean we are disputing the accuracy of Glazer’s report. We believe that two unnamed Eagles sources told him that they’re not interested in Favre. We just don’t believe anything the Eagles say when it comes to possible personnel moves.

                We used to, before coach Andy Reid said quarterback Donovan McNabb would be the starter in 2010. And before Reid said Kolb would remain the starter after being cleared to return from a Week One concussion in 2010. And before Reid said the defensive coordinator Sean McDermott would return for 2011.

                Wait, we’d already decided not to believe the Eagles before the McDermott thing.


                • #53
                  Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

                  For god's sakes, if the press doesn't talk about him, he might just STAY retired!

                  "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                  "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "


                  • #54
                    Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

                    As an Eagles fan, I saw this and just thought wtf? Doesn't even make sense. Unless Reid feels sorry for Farve or something.


                    • #55
                      Re: Brett Favre Soap Opera Thread

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      As an Eagles fan, I saw this and just thought wtf? Doesn't even make sense. Unless Reid feels sorry for Farve or something.

                      Or he knows with the way Vick plays he may not last an entire season.