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

Packers-Colts Thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

    Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
    I totally missed this. If anyone can make or find a .gif, that'd be awesome.

    Course, woulda been way better had Raji been in


    • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

      Luck excels downfield, Rodgers struggles

      NEXT LEVEL: Andrew Luck completed 12 of 22 (54.5 percent) passes traveling more than 10 yards downfield Sunday, including four completions on the final drive. Aaron Rodgers completed just 3 of 11 (27.3 percent) passes on throws of the same distance.

      From ESPN stats and info. More proof that Luck doesn't have an NFL quality arm if I've ever seen it.

      Andrew Luck off to great start

      NEXT LEVEL: Andrew Luck posted a Total QBR of 68.2 in Sunday's win over the Packers, his 3rd-straight game with a QBR of at least 65. Through 4 starts, he's gotten off to a much better start than the other quarterbacks taken 1st overall in the previous 3 seasons.
      about 1 hour ago | ESPN Stats and Informatio

      Who needs Peyton when you have Luck?

      Reggie Wayne caught 13 passes for 212 yards and a touchdown Sunday, bringing his season total to 36 catches through his first four games. That's a career high for Wayne through the first four games of a season, and Sunday's game was a reflection of how effective the Luck-Wayne combination has been. Luck was 6-of-8 for 90 yards and the game-winning touchdown when targeting Wayne in the fourth quarter alone.
      about 3 hours ago | ESPN Stats and Information

      NFL - Rookies to beat MVP QBs

      From Elias: The AP first named an NFL MVP in 1957. Today, Andrew Luck became just the 7th rookie QB to defeat a reigning MVP QB. And prior to this season, Charlie Batch was the only one to mount a 4th quarter comeback, leading the Lions past Brett Favre and the Packers in 1998.
      33 minutes ago | ESPN Stats and Information


      • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

        I'm savoring this win, promise. Yet...

        Looking forward to next week and the Jets brings up several things:

        1. The Colts are going back on the road for the first time in a month.
        2. Will Mathis be out for any length of time? Moala? Other injuries?
        3. What about Davis, Angerer, Reitz, Olsen, King?
        4. How does the team respond after such an emotional win?
        5. Next week's game might just be the national CBS game (Nantz, Sims)... the AFC schedule is weak next week.
        Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.


        • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

          We've got the best player in the game in Luck. So I give us a good chance to win. I mean we need to get the rest of the team better, but right now they look strangely like the team Peyton's last year, probably only OK, but the QB is pulling huge plays out of his *** (aided by some elite WR play) and we are winning games.


          • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            We've got the best player in the game in Luck. So I give us a good chance to win. I mean we need to get the rest of the team better, but right now they look strangely like the team Peyton's last year, probably only OK, but the QB is pulling huge plays out of his *** (aided by some elite WR play) and we are winning games.
            You mean the best player in the game of the Jets vs Colts right? Not best player in the game of footballl


            • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              You mean the best player in the game of the Jets vs Colts right? Not best player in the game of footballl
              Yes, I am 98% certain he means the best player in that game against the Jets. Although an honorable mention to Reggie Wayne needs to be noted. That guy is cementing himself in Colts' lore (as if he wasn't there already) with what he has done this season--sticking with the team when he could have left for greener pastures, and giving our rookie QB a reliable target.


              • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                Wayne today: 13 catches, 212 yards, and 1 TD

                Garcon season so far: 8 catches, 153 yards, 1 TD
                Just imagine the season Reggie would be having if he had RGIII passing to him...
                Edit Signature


                • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post

                  Was this the play where Luck was carted off on a stretcher?
                  My prediction came to fruition. Luck made Matthews look stupid on this play
                  Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel


                  • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                    I just saw that I somehow benched Reggie Wayne on my fantasy team...I think I clicked the wrong button on my phone or something. He scored 42 and I'm losing by 15.

                    I...don't know if I can even continue the league now. Totally bummed and embarrassed.


                    • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                      I wonder how much Reggie gets fined for the orange gloves...
                      Edit Signature


                      • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                        Originally posted by Natston View Post
                        I wonder how much Reggie gets fined for the orange gloves...
                        $15,000 and now he can't wear gloves anymore.


                        • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Kickers don't "normally" make 50 yard field goals.

                          Luck took punishment today? Are you kidding? How many times was Rodgers sacked?
                          Sure they do. If by "normally" you mean 58%. Which was Crosby's career rate (11 of 19) for 50 yard + FG's. After yesterday, that dropped to 52 %. Yep, the Colts sure dodged a bullet there...


                          • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                            Wow, what a win. It's amazing how clutch Luck is at the end of games. He makes NFL-quality throws, and there should be no doubt about his arm strength after yesterday. As was mentioned above, this would be his third straight game winning drive if it weren't for us blowing that Jacksonville game.

                            I'm so so so so glad we brought Reggie Wayne back. He is a special Colt. It's nice when a rookie QB has one of the greatest receivers of the last 10 years to lean on.

                            The defense was just incredible in the second half. That's some of the best Colts D I've ever seen. We made one of the greatest QBs and offenses look completely flustered. They couldn't do anything against us. I loved the sacks and the energy that we brought. Luck and the offense made some great plays, but they would have never had the chance if it weren't for our D completely owning GB in the second half.

                            It goes without saying that this was a special emotional win for the team and coaching staff. It's impressive how they played yesterday after what had to have been one of the most difficult weeks of their career. And to do it against a great team like GB who had a ton of fans in Lucas Oil. We will remember this one for a long time.


                            • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                              Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                              I just saw that I somehow benched Reggie Wayne on my fantasy team...I think I clicked the wrong button on my phone or something. He scored 42 and I'm losing by 15.

                              I...don't know if I can even continue the league now. Totally bummed and embarrassed.
                              i did the same thing. he got me 94 points
                              Smothered Chicken!


                              • Re: Packers-Colts Thread

                                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                                I am new here just wanted to say, I think the Colts have a bright future with Luck leading them
                                ur good
                                Smothered Chicken!