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

  • #61
    Re: Here's my plea

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    Make no mistake about it, the Polians were driven out because they didn't believe in releasing Manning and drafting Luck to replace him.

    I don't think that's true. The Manning decision was always going to be 100% on Irsay. It didn't really matter what anyone else thought. Make no mistake, the Polians were canned because the wheels came off last season.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Here's my plea

      To me that is a pretty big question mark to just hope that the assets we would have acquired with the number 1 pick would have fixed a lot of our issues.

      I get that people miss Manning, heck if you go back to March on this board, I would have been fine with bringing Manning back and even letting Luck learn under him, but as I watch this team, I don't know. This is a bad football team IMO, yes maybe all those assets we get for the number 1 pick and Luck pan out, but maybe they don't. Was there a more sure fire pick in the draft than the Luck? Maybe that tackle from USC, but that's about it. There is a reason Luck has been touted so high for over two years now.

      Luck deserves credit for that. At the start of his junior year, he was the sure fire number 1 pick, and even I predicted that as he stayed in college people would pick apart his game and start to find flaws. I thought ti would happen we almost always see it happen with "sure fire" number 1s. Someone always displaces them by the end of the season. Well Luck made it through his whole junior year without that happening. I thought it would happen AGAIN his senior year, that the more we saw Luck we would finally see something that made everyone say, this kid isn't quite as good as we think, but nope yet again, he was still number 1 at the end of his senior year, even after RGIII put an all out blitz on that pick. Luck was still the guy, and I don't think any other franchise would have played any differently than the way Colts did when it comes down to RGIII vs. Luck.

      And now even as we sit in week 5 of his rookie year and people still keep trying to poke holes in his game, what has Luck done? Oh, only already lead two 4th quarter game winning drives in his first 5 games (should be 3, I think we can all agree it should be 3, his team let him down against Jacksonville, period), I mean think about this for a second two 4th quarter game winning drives in his first 5 games, when he did it agianst Minnesota, it had been over 40 years since someone had done that. That is incredible, that is HISTORY making. And while he's doing this, yes, maybe he hasn't been the best QB in the league, but his advanced QBR has been in the top 5 all season, his yards per game is also top 5, he is running perhaps the most advanced offensive scheme we have ever seen a rookie run, a downfield passing attack with lots of route options and reads that occasionally goes no huddle. His completion percentage needs to get better, I agree and understand that, but I also understand that his completion percentage is right in line with where Peyton was 6 games into his rookie career and that was running a much less complicated offense at the time with a better supporting cast particularly on the offensive line.

      Yes, RGIII is great, I have never, ever denied this, back in April, I honestly did not care who we drafted between RGIII and Luck. I thought both were going to be great, part of me was excited at the prospect of RGIII even. I don't resent OlBlu for liking RGIII what I do resent is the insinuation that somehow RGIII is amazing while Luck sucks, because it is just not true or even based in reality. If they both keep up what they are doing all season it will probably be the two greatest rookie years for QBs EVER and it will happen in THE SAME YEAR. This is incredible on so many levels. even I thought it was a long shot 6 weeks ago, but it is really happening.

      No one really thought we would be 2-3 right now. Heck, OlBlu didn't even think we would win 2 games all year. And a big reason we have those 2 wins is because of number 12. He's played like a vet in crunch time three times now, he has been brilliant in the two minute drill in every game. Give the kid some credit, he's not Peyton Manning right now, but he might be some day, and regardless of who you want to blame for the Manning thing, Luck is not the guy who should take it, because if it wasn't him sitting there at the number 1 pick, then it would have been RGIII.
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-16-2012, 10:17 AM.


      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Here's my plea

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I don't think that's true. The Manning decision was always going to be 100% on Irsay. It didn't really matter what anyone else thought. Make no mistake, the Polians were canned because the wheels came off last season.
        I don't believe that for one minute. They were not on board with the decision and that is why they were run out. We would be better right now if they had stayed. They put together one of the best runs in NFL history. It wasn't an accident.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Here's my plea

          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
          Make no mistake about it, the Polians were driven out because they didn't believe in releasing Manning and drafting Luck to replace him.
          I must be mistaken then.... from what I heard Irsay was not happy about the nepotism with Polian and son. The relationship was slightly strained previous to that by Polian pushing Howard Mudd and Tom Moore out the door. Mudd and Moore were Dungy guys and Polian was slowly cutting away folks who had been faithful to the former coach.
          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Here's my plea

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            I don't believe that for one minute. They were not on board with the decision and that is why they were run out. We would be better right now if they had stayed. They put together one of the best runs in NFL history. It wasn't an accident.
            Polian was great at finding talent from 1998-06. That is indisputable. But from 07 onward he was bad and the greatness of Manning covered up his poor decisions. It was time for him to go.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Here's my plea

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              To me that is a pretty big question mark to just hope that the assets we would have acquired with the number 1 pick would have fixed a lot of our issues.
              Do you think all draft picks are big question marks, or just extra draft picks?

              Even if it's a big question mark, you get more chances to make impactful selections. If you don't have faith in the front office, with extra picks, then their alloted amount should be even bigger question marks.

              I think Luck is the better player when comparing just Luck and RGIII, but if it's RGIII+extra talent, I don't think Luck is THAT much better.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Here's my plea

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Do you think all draft picks are big question marks, or just extra draft picks?

                Even if it's a big question mark, you get more chances to make impactful selections. If you don't have faith in the front office, with extra picks, then their alloted amount should be even bigger question marks.
                All draft picks are question marks for the most part. I don't think Luck, RGIII, or Khalil in this draft were question marks. Everyone else question mark IMO. And this is a team with a lot of holes to fill, I don't think one draft was going to do it.


                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Here's my plea

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Polian was great at finding talent from 1998-06. That is indisputable. But from 07 onward he was bad and the greatness of Manning covered up his poor decisions. It was time for him to go.
                  You guys seem to be forgetting that Chris Polain was the guy who ran the drafts in the later years and totally botched the early rounds. He sucked and his daddy didn't want to the job fulltime anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Here's my plea

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Do you think all draft picks are big question marks, or just extra draft picks?

                    Even if it's a big question mark, you get more chances to make impactful selections. If you don't have faith in the front office, with extra picks, then their alloted amount should be even bigger question marks.

                    I think Luck is the better player when comparing just Luck and RGIII, but if it's RGIII+extra talent, I don't think Luck is THAT much better.
                    I can understand this argument but then again you would have had to trade back one selection which is a lot harder than people make it out to be. It probably could have been done but I am not sold that its just a simple phone call away with the Rams. They have their guy but all that aside your looking at 3 first round picks one of which is RG3 and then what? We have seen multiple first round draft picks have there season derailed by injury so its not a forgone conclusion that a second round selection in 2012 and a first in 2013 and 2014 would make a major impact.

                    Edit: It will be interesting to see how much the Rams improve in the coming years.
                    Last edited by Gamble1; 10-16-2012, 10:55 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Here's my plea

                      Since86 thinks you could get more than what you suggested Slick thats why he believes in trading back one selection.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Here's my plea

                        The only way we could have gotten RGIII is if we would have drafted him with our number 1 pick. There was no feasible way to get RGIII + draft picks. St. Louis wouldn't have wanted our number one pick because they already have Sam Bradford on the roster. They would have then had a ton of money invested in two quarterbacks which obviously makes no sense whatsoever. Trading that second pick for a haul of assets (4 picks) from Washington was a much better option for them than giving us a bunch of stuff for a position they already had filled. Sam Bradford + four extra draft picks is better than Luck + Bradford minus four draft picks of your own. It's a difference of like 7 or 8 picks.

                        RGIII + draft picks might sound nice on paper, but it was impossible given the circumstances. You have to look at the team that had the number 2 pick and they had no use whatsoever for our number 1 pick.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Here's my plea

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          There it is folks. He admits it. He just flat out hates Luck. He has said that he wants Luck to succeed but clearly that is crap and a lie. I have time for trolls, trolls can be fun. I don't have time for someone who will just hate hate hate for no reason.

                          So please, I've had as much fun with him as the next guy, but it's about to kill the Colts board. It is sucking all the fun out of watching Luck. I got what I really wanted from him. An admission that he is just a bitter man who hates Andrew Luck for no reason. So leave him to his devices.

                          Ignore him, block him, whatever.

                          Just let's let it be at this point. We are not going to get anywhere with someone who is consumed with blind hate. I don't care whether he continues to post or not. I won't be reading or responding to anything this guy says again.

                          Go Colts
                          About to? It already did because people don't know how to use the ignore button.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Here's my plea

                            BBS at Stampedeblue has always had a very condescending tone toward anyone who even remotely wanted to entertain the idea of retaining Manning:

                            http://www.stampedeblue.com/2012/10/...is#add-comment

                            He questions the competence of anyone who wanted to retain Manning, then follows it up with this gem:

                            Yes, better than Peyton was in 1998. Hell, he's better than Peyton was in 2000.

                            You can definitely say that Luck is a better rookie than Peyton for the simple reason that he shouldn't throw anywhere close to the 28 picks that Peyton threw. But saying Luck is currently better than Peyton in 2000 has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

                            Manning 2000 stats (third season): 33 TDS/15 INT, 4413 yds, 62.5% completion, 94.7 rating. Colts went 10-6.

                            Manning 1999 stats (second season): 26 TDS/15 INT, 4135 yds, 62.1% completion, 90.7 rating. Colts went 13-3


                            If Luck has a second and third season like that, I'll be doing cartwheels. I like Luck a lot, but BBS had no right calling Colts fans who wanted Manning back dumb when he is saying that Luck is currently better than a third year Manning who was hanging 33 TDs and a passer rating in the mid 90's.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Here's my plea

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              BBS at Stampedeblue has always had a very condescending tone toward anyone who even remotely wanted to entertain the idea of retaining Manning:

                              http://www.stampedeblue.com/2012/10/...is#add-comment

                              He questions the competence of anyone who wanted to retain Manning, then follows it up with this gem:

                              Yes, better than Peyton was in 1998. Hell, he's better than Peyton was in 2000.

                              You can definitely say that Luck is a better rookie than Peyton for the simple reason that he shouldn't throw anywhere close to the 28 picks that Peyton threw. But saying Luck is currently better than Peyton in 2000 has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

                              Manning 2000 stats (third season): 33 TDS/15 INT, 4413 yds, 62.5% completion, 94.7 rating. Colts went 10-6.

                              Manning 1999 stats (second season): 26 TDS/15 INT, 4135 yds, 62.1% completion, 90.7 rating. Colts went 13-3


                              If Luck has a second and third season like that, I'll be doing cartwheels. I like Luck a lot, but BBS had no right calling Colts fans who wanted Manning back dumb when he is saying that Luck is currently better than a third year Manning who was hanging 33 TDs and a passer rating in the mid 90's.
                              BBS is a complete tool, but it would be irrational to keep Manning when this team was rebuilding.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Here's my plea

                                It wasn't impossible. Arguing that it wouldn't have been easy is one thing, arguing it is completely impossible to do is totally different.

                                No doubt the FO would have to get creative, and it would most likely need more than one trade to happen, but that's not outside the realm of possbility. Just look at what StL did in the draft. They took their #2 pick, turned it into #6 with extra picks, then turned #6 into #14 and more extra picks.

                                Picks 2-7 were all traded due to teams jockeying for position to get the high talent left overs. Not only that but there were 19 trades total for just the first round last year, with 3 teams making multiple trades out of the 19 total trades.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X