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

Here's my plea

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

  • Re: Here's my plea

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    You are so funny. How much is it eating at your expert opinion that the Colts have already surpassed your win prediction for the whole season?
    Why, not at all. I root for them to win. So they have won three games. They might not win another one and they will still suck for years because there are so many holes to fill now. Good luck with free agency, it seems like that never works for anyone but that doesn't mean we won't try and fail at it. So what if they win six games this year. They still suck. Luck sucks big time and it will take years to get them back to respectabilty much less contention.... Luck will be a run of the mill QB, the defense still needs a complete rebuild and that won't happen in two or three years and there is nothing close to an offensive line. It didn't have to be that way. You all rooted for it to be that way and you will reap the losing for a big portion of the rest of your lives. It took 36 years for the Colts to get to a superbowl when Peyton finally took them there. Think about all of those QBs along the way. Luck won't make the difference. I have been watching him closely and he just isn't anything special and the stats say that or that he is nowhere close to average..... But you continue the mind games you are playing with yourself to convince you otherwise...... In three years, we will see who is right and Peyton will still be taking a team into the playoffs and perhaps deep into the playoffs....

    Comment


    • Re: Here's my plea

      "Luck sucks big time"


      Comment


      • Re: Here's my plea

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Keeping Freeny/Mathis means keeping the same coaching staff, no thank you.
        You would keep that same staff as long as Peyton was here. But, even if you replaced the head coach, you can't just change the style of defense so quickly and think the people you already have can make that change... They can't and they won't.

        Comment


        • Re: Here's my plea

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Keeping Freeny/Mathis means keeping the same coaching staff, no thank you.
          You play the defense that fits the players you have and that is a 4-3.... It doesn't have to be Tampa II but it wouldn't matter if it did. At least we would have constant pressure on the QB and we would have a decent secondary too. Besides, the current staff is terrible. They lost that Jacksonville game all by themselves and they tried their best to lose the Vikings game and today's game too...... I am not impressed with the current coaching staff at all and I think they will all be gone in three years or less.....

          Comment


          • Re: Here's my plea

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            "Luck sucks big time"
            If you are the 25th or 26th best QB in the NFL, you suck. Luck is exactly that and the stats and his play both say so....

            Comment


            • Re: Here's my plea

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              George came into the league with Luck like hype
              As I told you before (and you ignored it then) that is simply not true. George was a 2nd rounder, at best, before workouts shot him up the board. Luck was the #1 pick two drafts in a row.

              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...6924/index.htm

              Comment


              • Re: Here's my plea

                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                If you are the 25th or 26th best QB in the NFL, you suck. Luck is exactly that and the stats and his play both say :rolso....
                Statistically, Peyton Manning finished as the 23rd best QB in the NFL his rookie season. Guess he really sucks, huh.

                http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...true&Submit=Go
                Last edited by Freddie fan; 10-21-2012, 05:26 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Here's my plea

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Yeah I'm not sure about that, the Colts defense is putrid, even Peyton in his prime can't make this garbage team look good in my opinion, maybe one more win?

                  Note: remember that I also wanted to keep Peyton here.
                  The team last year was pretty much the same exact one from the year before. The only difference between an 11 game winning Colts team and a 2 game winner is Peyton. Last year proved that without a shadow of a doubt.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Here's my plea

                    Originally posted by Freddie fan View Post
                    Statistically, Peyton Manning finished as the 23rd best QB in the NFL his rookie season. Guess he really sucks, huh.

                    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...true&Submit=Go
                    At this point that means he was seven spots higher than Luck is right now.....

                    Comment


                    • Re: Here's my plea

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      The team last year was pretty much the same exact one from the year before. The only difference between an 11 game winning Colts team and a 2 game winner is Peyton. Last year proved that without a shadow of a doubt.
                      I'm talking about this year.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Here's my plea

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        EDIT: I think Peyton may have us at 4-2, not at 5-1. Luck has us at 3-3 and is 13 years younger than Peyton. So holy crap our rookie is so bad, he has the team at a record that is one whole game worse than I think one of the greatest of all time might have this team at.
                        Which is where we would be right now if not for a fluke blown defensive play.....
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • Re: Here's my plea

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          I think Manning will be better than Luck for as long as he decides to play the game. John Elway was winning superbowls at the age Manning will be in three to four years and he certainly thinks Peyton can do the same and so do I. I am just not sold on Luck at all. I see a QB who is about a 50% passer with a terrible QB rating. I see three or four better rookie QBs than Luck this year. The one he played today outplayed him and will probably pass him in QB rating. There is always a good QB available. As many number one picks fail miserably as make it. I don't think Luck will fail but I don't see him every being a star who carry a team on his back. He tried every way he could to give this game today to the Browns just like he did the Vikings. I am not impressed. RGIII on the on the other hand, I'm very impressed with him. He can carry a team on his back. He can make everyone around him better and he almost beat the Super Bowl champions today. I see him so far ahead of Luck that Andy Pandy will never make up the difference. RGIII is a superstar right now and only people in Indianapolis deny it...... Seattle's rookie is also better, Tannehill in Miami is better and today, I think that Weeden showed that he is better right now than Andrew Luck.....
                          You're posts are so full of bull crap and lies, that it is sickening. I enjoyed your devil's advocate role at first, but now you are just proving how factually incorrect your assumptions are. Check out that "terrible QB rating" for Luck you speak of. He is 6th overall for this season so far. And not one rookie above him, let alone 3 or 4.

                          http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

                          And he was 9th this week with a bad game for him, 2 spots higher than Weeden.

                          http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/type/player-week/week/7

                          So yea the "27th best QB" in the league according to you is rated 6th overall to this point in total QB rating. So "terrible." Only the Manning brothers, Brady, Ryan, and Roethlisberger are above him. Such bad company to be in for a rookie huh?

                          Just stop. You look like a complete fool now. LMFAO.
                          Last edited by Midcoasted; 10-22-2012, 12:47 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Here's my plea

                            Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                            You're posts are so full of bull crap and lies, that it is sickening. I enjoyed your devil's advocate role at first, but now you are just proving how factually incorrect your assumptions are. Check out that "terrible QB rating" for Luck you speak of. He is 6th overall for this season so far. And not one rookie above him, let alone 3 or 4.

                            http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

                            And he was 9th this week with a bad game for him, 2 spots higher than Weeden.

                            http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/type/player-week/week/7

                            So yea the "27th best QB" in the league according to you is rated 6th overall to this point in total QB rating. So "terrible." Only the Manning brothers, Brady, Ryan, and Roethlisberger are above him. Such bad company to be in for a rookie huh?

                            Just stop. You look like a complete fool now. LMFAO.
                            I am not the fool. The "official" QB rating shows that Luck is 30th. Weeden will pass him this week so he will be 31st. That rating you give just pays off for total yards and doesn't take into consideration completion percentage and sacks. It is NOT the stat that everyone talks about when evaluating QBs. But, it is certainly a good way to inflate the value if a very mediocre QB. Luck is the fifth rated QB in his rookie class. Not quite the most NFL ready QB ever is he?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Here's my plea

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I'm talking about this year.
                              I know. You said he couldn't make this garbage team look good this year. I was pointing out that the a contending team with Peyton is garbage without Peyton, meaning Peyton makes a garbage team good, which is what you're saying he can't do.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Here's my plea

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                I am not the fool. The "official" QB rating shows that Luck is 30th. Weeden will pass him this week so he will be 31st. That rating you give just pays off for total yards and doesn't take into consideration completion percentage and sacks. It is NOT the stat that everyone talks about when evaluating QBs. But, it is certainly a good way to inflate the value if a very mediocre QB. Luck is the fifth rated QB in his rookie class. Not quite the most NFL ready QB ever is he?
                                Dude, you're just completely wrong. Total QBR punishes more for sacks than regular QBR. Do you ever research anything before you spout off?

                                According to ESPN, QBR was developed to measure the degree to which a quarterback contributed to scoring points for the team, and also to a win by the team. For example, completing a pass to earn a first down at the quarterback's own 20-yard-line with 30 seconds left in the game is unlikely to lead to any points for his team, but if they are already leading it increases the probability of winning, as it usually enables the leading team to run out the clock. This second criterion is quantified using a "win probability" function which ESPN developed by analyzing data for each play of NFL games over the previous decade.
                                The computation requires an examination of each play in which the quarterback was involved. For each play, the change in the expected value of the points scored by the two teams is determined along with the maximum possible change in points for each team. The net points gained by the offense on the play are divided between the players involved in the play based on how much each contributed to the points gained or lost. For example, on a play where the quarterback immediately hands the ball off to a running back after the snap, the quarterback's contribution is negligible. On passing plays the quarterback is likely to have a major contribution, along with the blockers and the receiver. The resulting value is compared the maximum possible net point gain, and this comparison leads to a "net points percentage" value between 0 and 100 for the quarterback on each play which roughly represents the percentage of the possible point gain that the quarterback produced. This value is transformed so that a value of 50 represents the average net point gain of an NFL quarterback on the play.
                                The win probability function is then used to compute a "clutch index" for each play ranging from 0.3 to 3.0, with higher values corresponding to plays that have a greater influence on winning or losing the game. The QBR is obtained by taking the weighted average of the "points gained percentage" for each play, with each play having a weight equal to its clutch index. Thus the QBR has a range from 0 to 100 with 50 being considered average.[1]
                                [edit]Comparison to NFL Passer Rating

                                The calculation of the NFL passer rating is much simpler than the QBR, as it depends only on aggregate statistics rather than an analysis of each play a quarterback is involved in. Passer rating is calculated using each quarterback's completion percentage, passing yardage,touchdowns and interceptions, and has a maximum value of 158.3 and minimum value 0, with 80 being considered average.


                                So the stat you are using to pump up RGIII is the one that rewards passing yards and doesn't punish that much for sacks.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X