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

I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

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

  • I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

    FoxSports.com
    Former Baltimore coach Brian Billick says Andrew Luck "will struggle like Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman did in their rookie years. Aikman and Manning had a combined record of 3-24 as rookies. Both of them were on drafted to better teams than the one Luck is going to."

  • #2
    Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    FoxSports.com
    Former Baltimore coach Brian Billick says Andrew Luck "will struggle like Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman did in their rookie years. Aikman and Manning had a combined record of 3-24 as rookies. Both of them were on drafted to better teams than the one Luck is going to."
    This is what I was saying on another thread. This Colts team is not even close to being as good at the Aikman and Manning teams they joined in their first year. I have this bad feeling about Luck. I don't think he gets rid of the ball fast enough to avoid a lot of sacks. I feel about the same about him as I did Jemarkus Russell and David Carr........ I think he has "BUST" written all over him and I don't think that Washington would trade RG3 for Luck even up. I think there are other teams that feel that way too. This coach and general manager have no experience at this level and I am dubious that all they are doing is kissing Jimmie's behind and doing what he wants and that is a major screw-up waiting to happen.....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      This is what I was saying on another thread. This Colts team is not even close to being as good at the Aikman and Manning teams they joined in their first year. I have this bad feeling about Luck. I don't think he gets rid of the ball fast enough to avoid a lot of sacks. I feel about the same about him as I did Jemarkus Russell and David Carr........ I think he has "BUST" written all over him and I don't think that Washington would trade RG3 for Luck even up. I think there are other teams that feel that way too. This coach and general manager have no experience at this level and I am dubious that all they are doing is kissing Jimmie's behind and doing what he wants and that is a major screw-up waiting to happen.....
      You can always change your name and find another message board..

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

        I don't know a Colts fan who would object to the notion of the team struggling next year.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
          I don't know a Colts fan who would object to the notion of the team struggling next year.
          You are kidding, of course. There are some who post here who think they will be 8-8.......... they will win the number one pick two years in a row. I wonder if they will be taking a QB again??

          Comment


          • #6
            In comparison to that Indy team of 1998 I would disagree....he has Wayne and some defensive end talent At the least..

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
              In comparison to that Indy team of 1998 I would disagree....he has Wayne and some defensive end talent At the least..
              Wayne couldn't get a contract with another team. That Indy team in 1998 had Marvin Harrison and Marshall Falk. This team isn't close. The defensive end talent we have is negated by the fact we are going to play a 3-4 and we do not have a nose tackle.........

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                Wayne couldn't get a contract with another team. That Indy team in 1998 had Marvin Harrison and Marshall Falk. This team isn't close. The defensive end talent we have is negated by the fact we are going to play a 3-4 and we do not have a nose tackle.........
                So are you willing to bet your membership on this site that Luck is a bust?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                  I completly expect Luck to have a bit of a struggle this year. He's a beast but like Peyton he is one to think really deep into strategy... For an inexperienced guy playing against the best/ fastest defenses in the world, he's gonna think he is making a good/smart play, then quickly realize it's a bad decision and is a pick six. There is normally a growing process for guys like him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ownagedood View Post
                    I completly expect Luck to have a bit of a struggle this year. He's a beast but like Peyton he is one to think really deep into strategy... For an inexperienced guy playing against the best/ fastest defenses in the world, he's gonna think he is making a good/smart play, then quickly realize it's a bad decision and is a pick six. There is normally a growing process for guys like him.
                    You are spot on...the Colts news to bean him another weapon in the second round whether it be a tightend or wideout. There is a reason he is the highest rated qb since John elway...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                      Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                      So are you willing to bet your membership on this site that Luck is a bust?
                      No, but I will bet that RG3 is going to have a better season this coming year. Luck is four or five years away from having enough talent to compete. Washington is much better. I read an article the other day that said the odds were that either Luck or RG3 was going to be a bust. If one of them is a bust, I think it will be Luck.... RG3 is a MUCH better long passer, Luck is a little better at the short game..... Not my words, the words of experts who have watched them both.....

                      Besides, it will be five years before we will know if Luck is boom or bust. I may not live that long.....

                      But don't get your hopes up.....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                        Who cares, OlBlu? Everyone knows the 'Skins have a better team right now than the Colts. We've told you this repeatedly. It's highly likely that RG3 will have better stats and more wins this year --- BUT that has nothing to do with him being a better quarterback. The Colts just *started* REBUILDING.

                        Can you not post something positive about the team you supposedly "root for"? Exactly what point are you "winning" here?
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Who cares, OlBlu? Everyone knows the 'Skins have a better team right now than the Colts. We've told you this repeatedly. It's highly likely that RG3 will have better stats and more wins this year --- BUT that has nothing to do with him being a better quarterback. The Colts just *started* REBUILDING.

                          Can you not post something positive about the team you supposedly "root for"? Exactly what point are you "winning" here?
                          What positive is there really? All of the eggs are in Luck's basket and if he anything less than a star, the Colts will stink for a decade. If he is pretty good, they will still lose for five years.... Why don't the Patriots have these problems? They just keep winning and winning and winning........ Every 15 to 20 years we have a run for a few years and then we go back into rebuild mode. Meanwhile, the cheating Patsies keep winning and winning......

                          I guess my football attention the next few years will be in Denver. Perhaps by the time Peyton retires, the Colds will rise to at least being mediocre....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            No, but I will bet that RG3 is going to have a better season this coming year. Luck is four or five years away from having enough talent to compete. Washington is much better. I read an article the other day that said the odds were that either Luck or RG3 was going to be a bust. If one of them is a bust, I think it will be Luck.... RG3 is a MUCH better long passer, Luck is a little better at the short game..... Not my words, the words of experts who have watched them both.....

                            Besides, it will be five years before we will know if Luck is boom or bust. I may not live that long.....

                            But don't get your hopes up.....
                            I get that BUT...the 'skins have a much much better team than the Colts currently. Come on, I bet you your and mine membership that even at the end of the year Luck won't be considered a bust. Comparing luck to Russell is just an idiotic attempt at Skip Bayless journalism "shock and awe"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I don't expect any of the folks wearing rose colored glasses to believe me, but....

                              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                              I get that BUT...the 'skins have a much much better team than the Colts currently. Come on, I bet you your and mine membership that even at the end of the year Luck won't be considered a bust. Comparing luck to Russell is just an idiotic attempt at Skip Bayless journalism "shock and awe"
                              Why? There were people who thought Russell was the next great thing. There are people now who thing RG3 is better than Luck and I am one of those. I don't think Luck or RG3 will even come close to being as good as Cam Newton was last year and will be in the future. Newton was the the QB of a generation everyone talks about, not Luck........

                              But, I will be delighted if you are right and I am wrong........

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X