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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • #76
    Re: Non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    How are the Chiefs overrated? Did anyone really think they were good?!
    Not so much overrated but a lot of people thinking they where a dark house to do some damage.
    Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
      If Manning had gone to the Niners I think there would be legitimate talks about them going undefeated. I wish he had gone there, but it seemed he wanted to stay in the AFC so he wouldn't block Eli from playing in another Super Bowl (which was stupid).
      Why would that be stupid?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Non-Colts thread

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        Why would that be stupid?
        It's stupid because Eli is younger and will have several more chances to win it all after Peyton retires.


        And if Peyton wants to win another ring, that prevents Eli from getting one regardless of where he plays. Who cares if Eli gets to the Super Bowl if he doesn't win? Nobody remembers the Super Bowl loser.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
          If Manning had gone to the Niners I think there would be legitimate talks about them going undefeated. I wish he had gone there, but it seemed he wanted to stay in the AFC so he wouldn't block Eli from playing in another Super Bowl (which was stupid).
          And the NFC West is also significantly weaker than the AFC West, though those might be the two worst divisions in football. (Unless the Chargers are finally for real, but I'll believe that when I see it/ Norv Turner is elsewhere.)
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            I thought that I was the only person who didn't see them as contenders. Everyone seems to be in love with them.
            The NFC East has the same problem.

            Lots of fans, lots of television viewers, slightly above average teams that are immensely popular so they get crammed down the rest of the country's throats. The Bears are a 0.500 team but seven million people in this town still think they're on pace to go 15-1.

            If they go 15-1, they might be eligible for an asterisk for matching the Patriots unbeaten season. Hell, if the '85 Bears can be a dynasty with only one SB appearance (and yes, they use the word dynasty for them... "They were so good that they only had to win one SB to rank with the 60's Packers and 70's Steelers!" - HUH?!?!?), that's the way these fans think. They LOVE their Bears, but they are irrational homers. (PS, I'll never forget the "education" I was given once that Kordell Stewart was going to be the one to lead them to the Super Bowl. Really. It went like this: me: "Stop, I'm a Steelers fan, you're just embarrassing yourself." Them: "No, just you wait and see!")
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
              It's stupid because Eli is younger and will have several more chances to win it all after Peyton retires.


              And if Peyton wants to win another ring, that prevents Eli from getting one regardless of where he plays. Who cares if Eli gets to the Super Bowl if he doesn't win? Nobody remembers the Super Bowl loser.


              1. Its only two games the Packers looked unbeatable last year and they didn't win it all either.

              2. When the Colts won the SB he didn't prevent Eli from getting one the Eagles did when they beat the Giants that year but if they were to deny the other it would be in the Super Manning Bowl and nowhere else.

              3. Just because a team looks good on paper(and they do look good on the field so far) doesn't mean they'll win it all: See 2007 Pats, 2011 Packers

              Even the 2009 Colts had a shot of going undefeated but we unfortunately know how that ended....

              There are no guarantees I rather he have gone to the Niners because him joining the Broncos is giving me Elway flashbacks and makes me wonder if the Colts dump Andrew Luck will he grow up and be a Bronco too? Its just eerie

              Elway was near the end of his career when Manning was drafted and Manning is near the end of his career when Luck was drafted... They were all #1 picks by the Colts.


              The Broncos are in the AFC and its easier to get to the SB in the AFC than the NFC.

              The last QB to represent the AFC not named Manning/Brady/Roethlisberger was in 2002 with Rich Gannon

              As for the NFC West being weak well the Cardinals are also undefeated as well as the Niners right now.
              Last edited by Basketball Fan; 09-17-2012, 12:19 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                The replacement ref situation is NOT getting any better
                Did you see both of the really badly blown calls in the Steelers - Jets game?

                Hi-larious.

                On one play, they flagged Ike Taylor for pass interference. Now, 63,000 people in the stadium were PISSED at Ike Taylor because Santonio Holmes beat him so badly on the play that he was five yards away. Pass intereference?

                That was so unexpected that CBS was showing the replay of Clark's hit (shoulder pads on the ball) and Simms and Nantz couldn't figure out why a flag was thrown on the hit and there was no discussion of pass interference on a guy that far behind the play. (For obvious reasons.) Wow.

                Isaac Redman had a run where he was "almost" stopped in the backfield, finally broke free and gained about eight yards. Then the Jets "might" have been stripping him of the ball as he went down. On the field, they ruled him down by contact after eight yards. If it were to be ruled a strip or fumble, it was clear which Jets player came out with the ball so that "shouldn't" have been a problem.

                Ryan challenged, as he should have.

                Replay seems to conclusively show the knee was down for a four-yard loss, so the play should have been over there and no strip-fumble eight yards down the field. Now, Ryan clearly wanted the ball but if Redman was down in the backfield that should have still made for a 12-yard difference on the spot (loss of four vs. gain of eight).

                The replay was a bit fuzzy about the strip of the ball. It was close enough that I think you could say it was coming out. I'll give you that. In real time, I thought he was stripped and thought we were lucky with the down-by-contact call on the field.

                After replay, the initial call stood.

                What the hell?

                The Baltimore-Eagles game had an awful onfield fumble call against Vick as well, but at least the replay clearly showed an incomplete pass. I'm not sure how it didn't also turn into intentional grounding. I thought a replay of a "was that a forward pass or fumble?" play could have an intentional grounding call tacked on if the original fumble call was overturned and the rest of the intentional grounding criteria were met? That on-field call was so bad that even Dan Dierdorf, who by all accounts hasn't remembered any of the rules of football since he left MNL a couple decades ago, was shocked by it. At least they got it right after the review, which the Jets could make a legit case didn't happen for them. That wasn't going to fix the fact they got their *** kicked by our defense today (minus Harrison, minus Polamalu), so much for their high-scoring week #1.

                The NFL needs to fix this problem in a hurry.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  As for the NFC West being weak well the Cardinals are also undefeated as well as the Niners right now.
                  True, but its pretty easy to see them potentially going 3-11 over the rest of the season, too. 5-11 ought be good for third in the division, maybe battling St. Louis for second in the division.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
                    It's stupid because Eli is younger and will have several more chances to win it all after Peyton retires.


                    And if Peyton wants to win another ring, that prevents Eli from getting one regardless of where he plays. Who cares if Eli gets to the Super Bowl if he doesn't win? Nobody remembers the Super Bowl loser.
                    Except Peyton wouldn't have signed with Denver if he didn't think they could win a Super Bowl.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Non-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      True, but its pretty easy to see them potentially going 3-11 over the rest of the season, too. 5-11 ought be good for third in the division, maybe battling St. Louis for second in the division.
                      I think you underrate the Seahawks. Wilson is a better QB than people give him credit for.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

                        If they go 15-1, they might be eligible for an asterisk for matching the Patriots unbeaten season. Hell, if the '85 Bears can be a dynasty with only one SB appearance (and yes, they use the word dynasty for them... "They were so good that they only had to win one SB to rank with the 60's Packers and 70's Steelers!" - HUH?!?!?), that's the way these fans think. They LOVE their Bears, but they are irrational homers. (PS, I'll never forget the "education" I was given once that Kordell Stewart was going to be the one to lead them to the Super Bowl. Really. It went like this: me: "Stop, I'm a Steelers fan, you're just embarrassing yourself." Them: "No, just you wait and see!")
                        I especially get a kick out of the Bears fans who talk about how amazing the '85 Bears were, despite the fact that they were born after '85.
                        Last edited by Merz; 09-17-2012, 10:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Non-Colts thread

                          The Redskins 110% lost the game yesterday by being idiots (and playing zone all game long!)

                          With that said, the NFL repacement refs were an absolute JOKE!

                          They missed calls that I made on my couch, on both team, for the whole game. And that almost had 2 legit fist fights break out.

                          Not to mention they let the STL coach challenge a play that was already being reviewed, which should have been a penalty. When Shanny told the sidejudge, dude looked at him and kind of shrugged his shoulder like "I dont know whats happening"

                          The refs did not beat the Redskins (though I think that last play should have been an offsetting penalty) but the refs 100% sucked in the game.

                          The regular refs sucked at times. They made mistakes. But at one point in the fourth quarter I thought a brawl was going to break out. S-Jax should have got a TD (and not a penalty for spiking the ball). The refs missed obvious calls I was making at home.

                          The NFL needs to fix this. And fix it soon.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Non-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            I really don't think they are that bad. People are going to ***** about the refs regardless if they are replacements or not. There's enough instant replay built in to where I don't think they have had a huge impact yet. A few boners, sure, but not drastically worse than the normal refs.
                            I couldn't disagree more. I thought they were OK in the first week, in that blown calls had very little impact. Yesterday the poor officiating was central to just about every game I watched. Again, I am not referring to any one game, but EVERY game it seems like the refs are in way over their heads. I didn't see the Colts game, so maybe it was the exception. I am also not saying it's among the top 5 reasons the Patriots lost.

                            But it is time to get the REAL officials back.

                            A great many of the missed calls were not reviewable- phantom pass interference calls, holds that didn't occur or were blatant and were not called, hits called illegal that were not, and these were on-the-ball mistakes, where they are paying attention.

                            You can get away with ANYTHING away from the ball, which was causing near-brawls in just about every game and players were taking cheap shots with no calls. The refs lost control of the games, have no dialog with the players to clean things up, and are just in WAY WAY over their heads. I'd go so far to say that this year, if the lockout goes on the whole season and they do not improve, may warrant an asterisk, because this is just bizarre.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Non-Colts thread

                              You simply cannot bill yourself as being the premier sports league in the country if you have such inferior officials reffing your games.

                              Even those like Mike Golic who initially didn't think that using replacements was a big deal are now acknowledging that they were bad yesterday.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Non-Colts thread

                                Did anyone watch the BAL - PHI game?

                                These refs are in over their head.

                                I assure you, this has nothing to do with my team losing yesterday. The refs suck, and they need to go.

                                I agreed with Cdash in week 1, but sorry, if I had a performance at work as bad as these guys had yesterday I would be looking for a new job

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X