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

Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

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

  • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

    It is embarrassing how much this team is a one man show. They better pray for Luck or the years after Manning will be a disaster just like it has been after Elway and Marino. As Trader said we had a granite corner stone that was magnificent and then we decided to build the rest of the house with sticks and bird poo.

    The fact we have a Super Bowl win and have been so successful since Manning has been here is a testament to Manning not the front office. It really shows how great Manning really is.

    Polian did not build a team around Manning. He gave him some shiny toys that only he is good at playing with. JA and Wayne are the only ones who have consistently come to play week in and week out.

    Dallas has been a complete joke this year. He is supposed to be a top 5 TE in this league and he has done nothing but drop balls. Yesterday was just inexcusable from a top tier TE. I get we are asking him to block more, but he is still a freaking TE. He should not wear down enough that he is invisible in the passing game. He is showing that he is just another person who got rich off of Manning. We should have put Tamme in there after Clark's third drop.

    Polian did an amazing job at building our secondary. We cut Hayden because he was overpaid, cut Tryon because he was frustrated for not starting, gave Lacey the starting spot, released Bob, gave that starting spot to perennial backup, and filled out the rest with rookies and UDFA. Again this just goes back to BP's reliance on Manning and he just figured that Manning would get us those leads and let Mathis and Freeney go to work which would make our crappy secondary look better then what they are.

    Polian and Irsay has made Caldwell look like a puppet as well. First Irsay is tweeting about signing Collins and Caldwell had no clue. Then Polian is telling fans that there is no doubt that Painter will start, but Caldwell when asked is saying no decision has been made.

    Comment


    • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

      Yeah, Dallas has to be suffering the most from this. Guy has looked completely different without Peyton.


      Comment


      • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        EDIT: Here's my point, our front office didn't DO **** to win that super bowl. They got Peyton Manning and all they got out of it was one super bowl. That's embarrassing.
        Wait a minute.


        Didn't you just make a post talking about how the Colts rolled the dice with Bob and it worked out for them.

        Which is it. Did they not do **** or did they take a chance on Bob? You can't have it both ways.

        EDIT: This is why I think you're guy's complaints are weird. In one breath you say they haven't done anything, and then you're met with the usual evidence that they actually did do something. Like sign Booger. Or Corey Simon. Or take the chance with Bob. I can continue the list, but I think my point is made.

        There's a difference in disagreeing with the moves they actually did make, and saying they didn't make any moves.

        If you're going to complain, atleast complain about the correct things and don't make stuff up.

        I hate the Cover 2 as much as anyone here, but let's not pretend like the FO just sits on each other's thumbs.

        I just want to know if the Cover 2 is coming from the coaching staff or the FO. If it coming from the FO, then they need to move along. But if they want to start changing up the defensive identity of the team, then get to work.
        Last edited by Since86; 10-10-2011, 09:55 AM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

          Here's what is really bad about the current situation and all the warts being exposed. This should've been the year they pulled out all the stops to shore this team up and make sure they had the best chance possible to make the SB with the SB in Indy. You can argue the loss of Manning derailed the offense and the SB dreams but the defense shouldn't be a sieve. We shouldn't be complaining about the defense this season. We should be moaning about what a shame it is not to have a Manning led offense with this SB caliber defense that was finally put together.

          And for all the talk that the defense is built to play with a lead... well, they had a lead yesterday. ...Looked like the same old bad defense to me that makes no lead safe.

          The system is broke and has been broke for some time.... and still we trudge forward with it. It's time for a housecleaning of everyone who is not onboard with a complete overhaul of this system.
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            The system is broke and has been broke for some time.... and still we trudge forward with it. It's time for a housecleaning of everyone who is not onboard with a complete overhaul of this system.
            Although I agree in part to what your are saying I find it pointless to fantasy about Bill Polain being fired or anyone else. At best Caldwell is the only one I think Irsay would fire right now.

            My prediction is that Bill will step in and remove a couple of coaches from the staff and sell that as a fix to the system. I seriously doubt Caldwell would be among the group but anything could happen.
            Last edited by Gamble1; 10-10-2011, 11:45 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

              EDIT: Here's my point, our front office didn't DO **** to win that super bowl. They got Peyton Manning and all they got out of it was one super bowl. That's embarrassing. Could you imagine what Belicheck and the Pats front office would have done with Peyton? Well you don't really have to imagine you can see it based on what they did with Brady.
              .

              Manning has definitely been carrying the team the last few seasons, but I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that our FO didn't do ***** to win the Super Bowl 5 years ago. That team was pretty damn talented. Harrison and Wayne were 2 Pro Bowl caliber receivers (though Polian didn't draft Harrison) and Clark was in his stride. The O-Line back then was great (still had Glenn), which led to a solid running game with the Rhodes/Addai combo. Freeny and Mathis were in their prime and we took that chance on Booger. And then Sanders of course helped us mightily in the postseason. There was plenty of talent on that 06 team and the front office deserves credit for that.

              And to be fair, we did get to the Super Bowl 2 years ago. The front office put a good enough team out there around Manning to enable us to go 14-0 and reach the Super Bowl. Granted, Manning pulled a lot of wins out of his *** that year, but that team still had some legit talent on it and the front office put a good enough team out there to have a tremendous record and win the AFC. Once you get to the Super Bowl, it's all on the players. Polian didn't screw up the onside kick, Hank Bakset did. Polian didn't drop that key first down ball, Garcon did. The pick 6 to Tracy Porter wasn't on Polian, it's on Manning/Wayne (if you watch the replay, Collie is WIDE OPEN for a first down).

              First and foremost, it's the players fault that we don't have a second Super Bowl ring. We could have won that game against New Orleans if we executed better. The front office put us in a good enough position to win that game and it's all on the players at that point.

              I definitely have my concerns over recent drafting (though 2011 could pan out well) and the defensive philosophy at times, but I'm not going to act like the front office is completely worthless. They have brought a lot of talent here and we almost had 2 Super Bowls. It's fair to say that we've underachieved by just winning one, but the players bear a huge brunt of that responsibility.

              Comment


              • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                It is just silly to me that Pacers fans who are also Colts fans are complaining the Colts have only one championship, while the Pacers somehow get a pass for never getting one when they had the chance and choking away many opportunities.

                Also, let me set myself straight. Fire Caldwell, Polian, Polian JR., Coyer and the rest......NOW.


                I'll explain it in a way even you can understand:

                Reggie Miller as great as he was for the Pacers was never on Jordan's level(and I loathed Jordan BTW) I never saw him as the savior for the Pacers a great player helped make us relevant but I never thought he could ever lead us to a title even when we were close and while I was disappointed in the Pacers not winning it all I never really had high expectations for them either. But at least the Pacers did what they could to try and improve and be better despite falling short.

                The Bulls were always better and had a more complete team with a more complete player(Jordan)

                Then you have the Colts with Peyton Manning one of the greatest QB's in NFL history a true game changer/franchise savior if I ever saw one. He helped get the Colts surpass a basketball team in Indiana of all places as a premier franchise. He helped make Indy a viable sports town in a way the Pacers never could. A bonafide superstar.

                Yet the Colts who have this great QB to me never got the premier coach(sure there's Dungy but even I found him overrated with how incredibly conservative he was I can see why the Bucs fired him) that goes with ever great QB or the top notch defense and special teams.

                Instead they built around one player which was great in the regular season but in the postseason 1 and done all the time.

                They were too conservative, too stubborn, and too blind to realize how they wasted the career of one of the greatest QB's in NFL history when he'll end up with only 1 SB when he should be in the same breath as Joe Montana guys who won multiple SB's.

                In the end he'll be blamed for not winning enough and its really not the case. So yes I find that unacceptable.

                Comment


                • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  Instead they built around one player which was great in the regular season but in the postseason 1 and done all the time.
                  Can we stop with the over-the-top extremism?

                  Built around one player? Do you remember Bob Sanders? I know he barely played, but geesh, when he did play he was won DPOY. I guess that's not good enough to be considered a superstar, or atleat not good enough to be considered a building block.

                  Freeney? Nope, not good enough.
                  Mathis? Nope, not good enough.
                  Reggie Wayne? Nope.
                  Marvin Harrison? Nope.
                  Edge? Hell naw!

                  Man, imagine how good the Colts would have been had they been able to find just one other player to build around. Just one!!!

                  If they would have gotten just that one other player, they might have made it to three SuperBowls.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                    Can anyone honestly tell me what qualified Jim Caldwell to be the head coach of a NFL team?


                    Comment


                    • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Can anyone honestly tell me what qualified Jim Caldwell to be the head coach of a NFL team?


                      He's black and a friend of Dungy's who is easy to control...

                      Apparently that's all the Colts cared about.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Can we stop with the over-the-top extremism?

                        Built around one player? Do you remember Bob Sanders? I know he barely played, but geesh, when he did play he was won DPOY. I guess that's not good enough to be considered a superstar, or atleat not good enough to be considered a building block.

                        Freeney? Nope, not good enough.
                        Mathis? Nope, not good enough.
                        Reggie Wayne? Nope.
                        Marvin Harrison? Nope.
                        Edge? Hell naw!

                        Man, imagine how good the Colts would have been had they been able to find just one other player to build around. Just one!!!




                        If they would have gotten just that one other player, they might have made it to three SuperBowls.

                        Bob Sanders? The same guy who barely can make it an entire season. Except for this year Manning was the iron man and the one constant of this team for the past 13 years. Yes he was great but like I said barely saw the field.

                        However unlike Manning we were able to win games without Bob because this team could adjust without him. We've also won games without all those other guys you mentioned since Manning was drafted as great as they were they don't have the pulse of this team like Peyton does.

                        And that's my point this team made the monumental mistake of building around Manning they lived and died with him and now this is the team we're left with.

                        You never build around one player as great as he is.

                        If this team was a real SB contender they would've at least won 1 game by now (and a good coach to boot)

                        The Packers are showing how its done but the Colts will never get a clue at this point.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          He's black and a friend of Dungy's who is easy to control...

                          Apparently that's all the Colts cared about.
                          Not so sure that has a great deal to do with it.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            Not so sure that has a great deal to do with it.
                            As sad and wrong as it is, I think it's on the money.

                            Is there a reverse Rooney rule in the NFL ?? If so, the Colts broke it. If not, well - why not ??

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Not so sure that has a great deal to do with it.
                              For the Colts brass? No

                              For Dungy's appointment as successor? Yes he even said as much. He'd like to give another black coach an opportunity.

                              Me? I don't care what race he is he should be competent and I don't see that in Caldwell at all.

                              And the Colts should've never let him make that decision. You think Manning will have a say in who replaces him? Nope

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chiefs @ Colts Game/Post-Game

                                I think it was more of a continuity thing. Dungy hand picked him, he was familiar with an organization that needed no changing, and he was cheap. Being black just saved the Colts for interviewing a candidate with zero shot to get the job.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X