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

ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

    Michael Sam, an All-American defensive lineman from Missouri Tigers and the Associated Press' SEC Defensive Player of the Year, said that he is gay in an interview with ESPN's "Outside the Lines" on Sunday.

    Sam stated publicly what his teammates and coaches at Mizzou have known since August: "I am an openly, proud gay man."

    Sam is eligible for the NFL draft in May. Assuming that he is drafted, Sam could become the first openly gay player in the history of the NFL.

  • #2
    Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

    Will be interesting to see if he's actually drafted.


    • #3
      Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
      Will be interesting to see if he's actually drafted.
      He will be easily without a doubt.
      Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.


      • #4
        Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        Will be interesting to see if he's actually drafted.
        Dude was the SEC Defensive Player of the Year. He won't have a problem getting drafted. If he falls, it will be ridiculous. He's a 2nd or 3rd rounder for sure.


        • #5
          Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
          Dude was the SEC Defensive Player of the Year. He won't have a problem getting drafted. If he falls, it will be ridiculous. He's a 2nd or 3rd rounder for sure.
          If he falls it will be a sad commentary on where we are in football. If the guy nails his workouts there is no reason for his stock to fall other than him being gay.

          Good for him. I am sure most people will not care, but I am sure there will be a vocal minority that will say some ignorant stuff.


          • #6
            Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

            I'd draft this dude on the sheer amount of confidence this takes.


            • #7
              Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

              bet this will be the first "football culture" story they don't trot Dungy out for his opinion on


              • #8
                Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                He will be easily without a doubt.

                In an ideal world this announcement would not matter and everyone would be accepting and judge him on his talent alone. We don't live in an ideal world my questions about him not being drafted are based on this.

                "I don't think football is ready for [an openly gay player] just yet," said an NFL player personnel assistant. "In the coming decade or two, it's going to be acceptable, but at this point in time it's still a man's-man game. To call somebody a [gay slur] is still so commonplace. It'd chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room."
                All the NFL personnel members interviewed believed that Sam's announcement will cause him to drop in the draft. He was projected between the third and seventh round prior to the announcement. The question is: How far will he fall?
                "I just know with this going on this is going to drop him down," said a veteran NFL scout. "There's no question about it. It's human nature. Do you want to be the team to quote-unquote 'break that barrier?'"


                • #9
                  Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                  The quoted part of that story is nothing more than two cowards hiding behind anonymity. They better hope they don't get named because they'll be portrayed as giant douchebags when this move gets made.
                  Last edited by travmil; 02-10-2014, 11:43 AM.


                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                    While that is true I think its a lot more common belief than people want to admit in the NFL.

                    When it comes down to it I don't think teams care of a player is gay or not behind closed doors but being openly gay is another story.


                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                      NFL scout texts top 5 best locker rooms for Michael Sam: Seahawks, Patriots, Green Bay, Colts, Giants.

                      In other words, well-run teams with strong locker rooms who value player IQ. If stupid teams pass when ability/fit says otherwise, then it suits them right.

                      Distractions? People said when Belichick signed Tebow it would be a huge distraction. He kept him until the final cut, showing that BB can manage media circuses pretty well and make football decisions based just on football ability/focus/execution. The method there was to address it up front, make the player available up front, talk about how everything you do is in the best interest of the team. Then in subsequent days when the TMZ and other goofball reporters are hanging around asking the same things, answer "we went all over that before and we have no new updates. We're here to answer questions about the next game". After about a week of the same reporters getting the same amount of non-answers, the pool of idiot reporters shrinks back down to baseline levels.

                      As to Sam in New England, the sexuality is not the drawback, it's that he lacks the size of a prototypical Belichick DE.
                      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!).


                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                        Decades-old mindset still stands in the way of first openly gay NFL draft prospect

                        Joe Posnanski,

                        SOCHI, Russia -- Anyone can be a pioneer in the sheltering comfort of history. Buck O’Neil, the great Negro Leagues player and manager, would smile because people always rushed up to say that they wish they could have stood behind Jackie Robinson in his fight to integrate baseball. They would have fought for him. Ol’ Buck would nod.

                        “I know you would,” he would say, because that was Buck O’Neil, and because he loved people. But, of course, he knew better than anyone that it was so much more complicated than that. Now, Jackie Robinson is a hero. Now, Jackie Robinson is at the heart of a great American story. Now, he is taught at schools and celebrated on postage stamps, and he is the subject of a big Hollywood movie. Now, his cause is seen not only as just but as unmistakable.

                        It wasn’t like that in 1947.

                        One thing many people miss about that time -- the most powerful enemies of integration were not the red-faced extremists and racists who turned on fire hoses and lined the streets while shouting at black children trying to go to school. No, the real battle was being waged at the dinner tables of middle-class families, in the thoughtful conversation of universities and office buildings, in swing-set talks on the playground. There, Jackie Robinson’s cause was not viewed as unmistakable. There, the counter arguments sounded so reasonable.

                        The arguments: Black players, because of their backgrounds, cannot handle the intensity of Major League Baseball (“It’s not their fault!” the more progressive would add). They don’t have the attitude or intelligence to play the game at the highest level. Some racist white teammates, you see, will not accept a black player. Team chemistry, always so fragile, will be shattered. Yes, of course, it would be wonderful if everyone was treated equally; it’s something we should all strive for, but the world is a harsh place, the world does not have only open-minded people, the world is not such a nirvana yet. And black players have their own Negro Leagues already.

                        Soon, though, people told each other.

                        Later, though, people said.

                        Sixty-seven years later, it’s so blindingly easy to see through those infuriatingly thin arguments. African Americans lack the intelligence? White teammates would never accept them? We would never have fallen for such insanity. We would never have allowed such nonsense.

                        Anyone can be a pioneer in the sheltering comfort of history.

                        Sunday, an All-American football player from the University of Missouri named Michael Sam announced he was gay. The fact he made this announcement just weeks before the NFL draft is groundbreaking and unprecedented. Almost all of the people in mainstream American sports who came out did so from a different position -- after their career had finished or at the end or (in the extraordinary case of Martina Navratilova) at the height of their success.

                        For Sam, though, this is just the beginning. Before the beginning, even. It seems that he did not want to announce it. He had been content living his life in relative privacy -- he had come out to his teammates at Missouri, and his friends knew, and that was enough. But as the NFL draft approached, he came to realize just how many people knew (one NFL player personnel director estimated to SI’s Peter King that 29 or 30 of the 32 NFL teams knew). And he worried (not unreasonably) that in today’s media hailstorm, he could be outed.

                        “I want to own my own truth,” he told ESPN.

                        That much of America’s attention these days is focused here on Russia, with its disgraceful anti-LGBT laws, is telling. Because it shifts our focus away from home. Immediately after the announcement, there were the expected reactions -- widespread and heartfelt praise for Sam’s courage and the more limited gay slurs and dismissals mostly hidden behind anonymity and Twitter handles. But, like with Jackie Robinson, the battle is not waged on the high or low ground of the extremes. It is waged in the center. And in the center you can see that the Michael Sam story -- and the story of how we see gay people in 2014 -- is extremely complicated.

                        “First of all,” one NFL general manager told Peter King, “we don’t think he’s a very good player. The reality is he’s an overrated football player in our estimation. Second: he’s going to have expectations of where he should be drafted, and I think he’ll be disappointed. He’s not going to get drafted where he thinks he should. The question you will ask yourself, knowing your team, is, ‘How will drafting him affect your locker room?’ And I am sorry to say where we are at this point and time, I think it’s going to affect most locker rooms. A lot of guys will be uncomfortable. Ten years from now, fine. I think being openly gay is a factor in the locker room.”

                        This quote is so remarkable, I had to print it in full. Have you ever heard any GM, on the record or on background, say such distasteful things publicly about a college football player, much less a deeply respected and much decorated one?

                        Let’s see if we hit all the checkpoints.

                        — Lacks the capability to play in the NFL? Check.

                        — Doesn’t have the attitude to play in the NFL? Check.

                        — Some homophobic teammates would not accept him? Check.

                        — His presence would alter team chemistry? Check.

                        — In a perfect world, it would be great to include gay football players? Check.

                        — But we don’t live in a perfect world? Check.

                        — Soon, though. Later, though. Say: Ten years. Check, check and check.

                        Somehow, a man who has risen to the general manager of an NFL team felt comfortable saying this rubbish -- behind anonymity -- in 2014. He’s not alone. Jonathan Vilma, while making clear that he’s not homophobic, told the NFL Network’s Andrea Kremer that he wouldn’t feel comfortable with some gay player looking at him in the shower. Former NFL punter Chris Kluwe believes he was released, at least in part, because of his outspoken support for gay rights and says he endured intense bigotry from one coach. And so on.

                        Michael Sam is already a pioneer. Before this season began, he told his teammates that he was gay. And then he was a leader on a Missouri team that shocked everyone, went 12-2, reached the SEC Championship game, played in the Cotton Bowl. He led the SEC in sacks. He was named the conference’s defensive player of the year. He was quietly but proudly gay and his teammates -- young men who come from all sorts of backgrounds and undoubtedly have all sorts of feelings about homosexuality -- rallied around him.

                        We already live in a world where this can happen. We shouldn’t wait for history to make it obvious.

                        This is the darkest timeline.


                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          In an ideal world this announcement would not matter and everyone would be accepting and judge him on his talent alone. We don't live in an ideal world my questions about him not being drafted are based on this.

                          Haha, I'd like to see what player personnel assistant tell Sam he isn't a "man's man" to his face. Sam could probably beat the **** out of that guy, sounds like some front office nerd who has never played sports.


                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                            Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                            Haha, I'd like to see what player personnel assistant tell Sam he isn't a "man's man" to his face. Sam could probably beat the **** out of that guy, sounds like some front office nerd who has never played sports.
                            I cant remember who tweeted it this morning but it was something along the lines of "any player will tell you the last person you want to ask what an NFL locker room is like is an nfl personnel guy"


                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN: Michael Sam of Missouri Tigers Says He's Gay

                              Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                              Haha, I'd like to see what player personnel assistant tell Sam he isn't a "man's man" to his face. Sam could probably beat the **** out of that guy, sounds like some front office nerd who has never played sports.
                              I just face palmed when I read that quote. So you are saying the defensive player of the year from the SEC, which is the best conference in the country, is not man enough to handle the game? On another board people who say crap like this were whining about being called ignorant. People get in their head that when you have a gay guy you are getting Jack from Will and Grace or Cam from Modern Family.

                              This NFL front office guy has probably never been around a gay person in his life and has that stereotype stuck in his head.

                              Ignorance will be Michael's worst enemy in all of this.