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

Browns-Colts thread

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

  • Re: Browns-Colts thread

    Weeden did look good today. He's also getting much more time to throw than Luck. Our pass rush was pitiful. Luck is on the run 90% of every game this season. He's doing an admirable job getting away but that is not a recipe for success for many QBs. However even in the face of that Luck is having one of the best rookie seasons ever and that cannot be changed.


    Comment


    • Re: Browns-Colts thread

      Luck a bust???????????? come on now Ol'blue you even know that is not true, who expected the Colts to be 3-3? no one did, including you, so if Luck is some huge bust how are they 3-3, a great defense? no. good running game? no. great O-line? no. Luck has been great this season and you know it

      Comment


      • Re: Browns-Colts thread

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        So what? Luck will never come close to being the player Romo is..... He is not the problem in Dallas.....
        What a deft move. Instead of acknowledging that your star Romo was benched already this season you turn it around to suggest that the #1 pick in the NFL draft is worse than a player who is not only not a star but has already been benched once this season and likely will be benched again. Absolutely no credit to a kid who has almost single handedly been responsible for three wins.

        You must have taken that college course called keep throwing out ******** because it will distract some people.
        Last edited by speakout4; 10-21-2012, 09:05 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Browns-Colts thread

          Originally posted by DGPR View Post
          By the end of this year Andrew Luck will be eating Romo's lunch on a weekly basis. And calling Luck a complete bust is beyond ridiculous. Peyton Manning had a horrendous rookie season and Luck has already matched his total wins in just 6 games. You are so petty.
          You don't know what you are talking about. Peyton had one of the great rookie seasons in NFL history. He threw for 3739 yards and 26 TDs. He did have 28 INTs.

          Luck is on pace to throw for 4464 yards but only 18 TDs with 18 INTs.

          Peyton was the first NFL rookie QB to throw for 3 TDs in a game against the 49ers. He set five NFL rookie records that year. If Luck has many more performances like today, he will not get that many yards. We will see how he adds up at the end of the season but Peyton was great in his first season no matter what you say. Andrew Luck is the 30th rated QB in the NFL and going lower. He isn't going to be eating anybody's lunch at the rate he is going. Romo in the next three years has enough talent on his team to go to a superbowl with some good fortune and some more good players added. Luck isn't going anywhere. So, it is not petty, what you say is simple absurd. So, Luck has won three games. That doesn't mean anything to me, he may or may not win any more. He might not even finish the season and come close to Peyton in any catagory. He could have a 5 INT game. When the season is over, then we will talk but do not tell me that a 30th rated passer in the NFL is doing anything at all. He is also throwing the ball much more than Peyton did and his completion percentage is just horrible......

          Comment


          • Re: Browns-Colts thread

            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
            What a deft move. Instead of acknowledging that your star Romo was benched already this season you turn it around to suggest that the #1 pick in the NFL draft is worse than a player who is not only not a star but has already been benched once this season and likely will be benched again. Absolutely no credit to a kid who has almost single handedly been responsible for three wins.
            What? Reggie Wayne single handedly won one of those games and was making circus catches and bailing Luck out of bad throws all day long. Luck tried his best to give today's game to the Browns, they just wouldn't let him. Romo is rated far ahead of Luck now and he will be even more ahead by the end of the season. In case you haven't notice, Romo has been considered a star for many years. Luck isn't considered that by anyone outside of Indianapolis. Even Wilson wrote an article in the star about the 30th ranking. He may be going lower than that rather quickly. I don't see any growth here.

            Comment


            • Re: Browns-Colts thread

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              You don't know what you are talking about. Peyton had one of the great rookie seasons in NFL history. He threw for 3739 yards and 26 TDs. He did have 28 INTs.

              Luck is on pace to throw for 4464 yards but only 18 TDs with 18 INTs.

              Peyton was the first NFL rookie QB to throw for 3 TDs in a game against the 49ers. He set five NFL rookie records that year. If Luck has many more performances like today, he will not get that many yards. We will see how he adds up at the end of the season but Peyton was great in his first season no matter what you say. Andrew Luck is the 30th rated QB in the NFL and going lower. He isn't going to be eating anybody's lunch at the rate he is going. Romo in the next three years has enough talent on his team to go to a superbowl with some good fortune and some more good players added. Luck isn't going anywhere. So, it is not petty, what you say is simple absurd. So, Luck has won three games. That doesn't mean anything to me, he may or may not win any more. He might not even finish the season and come close to Peyton in any catagory. He could have a 5 INT game. When the season is over, then we will talk but do not tell me that a 30th rated passer in the NFL is doing anything at all. He is also throwing the ball much more than Peyton did and his completion percentage is just horrible......
              You're correct a guy who can get 4464 yards rookie season is probably the worst QB in the NFL. On what planet does that logic work?

              Comment


              • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                Luck a bust???????????? come on now Ol'blue you even know that is not true, who expected the Colts to be 3-3? no one did, including you, so if Luck is some huge bust how are they 3-3, a great defense? no. good running game? no. great O-line? no. Luck has been great this season and you know it
                Luck has not been great. A good QB like Peyton Manning would have this team at 5-1 or 4-2. Luck is rated 30th out of all passers in the NFL. How is that great? He only has 7 TD passes after six games and 7 INTs to go with that. He has been sacked and beaten around. The only good stat he has is yards per game and that is because he is chucking the ball at a near record rate. You should get 300 yards when you throw 50 times. There are four rookie QBs rated above him and Weeden may pass him this week and certainly outplayed him today. I don't know what you are drinking but this guy isn't living up to the hype at all and he probably won't......

                Comment


                • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                  You're correct a guy who can get 4464 yards rookie season is probably the worst QB in the NFL. On what planet does that logic work?
                  Throw 50+ times most game and you will get some yardage even with his absurd 53% completion rate. No other team in the NFL would even let him play passing that badly..... He won't get get 4464 yards. A few more 186 yd games will take care of that.....

                  Comment


                  • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    Throw 50+ times most game and you will get some yardage even with his absurd 53% completion rate. No other team in the NFL would even let him play passing that badly..... He won't get get 4464 yards. A few more 186 yd games will take care of that.....
                    He has no reliable receivers other than Reggie so he ran for 2 TDs and won the game. That is the goal to win the game or is it to rack up stats?
                    Last edited by speakout4; 10-21-2012, 09:20 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Weeden did look good today. He's also getting much more time to throw than Luck. Our pass rush was pitiful. Luck is on the run 90% of every game this season. He's doing an admirable job getting away but that is not a recipe for success for many QBs. However even in the face of that Luck is having one of the best rookie seasons ever and that cannot be changed.
                      He is not having a great rookie season. His only great stat is total yards and that is because he is virtually allowed to throw whenever he wants to. 53% completion rate is TERRIBLE. He is only rated 5th in his own rookie class of QBs after today. You can make all of the excuses you want for him but he is not playing well. 7 TD in seven games is not overpowering and way behind what Peyton did.....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by travmil View Post
                        Does anyone want to take a wild guess how many times the "star" Romo has been in the top 10 in any of the 5 major passing categories during his 8 year career? So 40 chances to get into the top 10 in completions, yards, td's, rating, and %? Anyone?
                        Does anyone want to guess if Luck will get in the top ten on anything in his first eight years. My guess is "no", he won't ........

                        Comment


                        • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          You don't know what you are talking about. Peyton had one of the great rookie seasons in NFL history. He threw for 3739 yards and 26 TDs. He did have 28 INTs.

                          Luck is on pace to throw for 4464 yards but only 18 TDs with 18 INTs.

                          Peyton was the first NFL rookie QB to throw for 3 TDs in a game against the 49ers. He set five NFL rookie records that year. If Luck has many more performances like today, he will not get that many yards. We will see how he adds up at the end of the season but Peyton was great in his first season no matter what you say. Andrew Luck is the 30th rated QB in the NFL and going lower. He isn't going to be eating anybody's lunch at the rate he is going. Romo in the next three years has enough talent on his team to go to a superbowl with some good fortune and some more good players added. Luck isn't going anywhere. So, it is not petty, what you say is simple absurd. So, Luck has won three games. That doesn't mean anything to me, he may or may not win any more. He might not even finish the season and come close to Peyton in any catagory. He could have a 5 INT game. When the season is over, then we will talk but do not tell me that a 30th rated passer in the NFL is doing anything at all. He is also throwing the ball much more than Peyton did and his completion percentage is just horrible......
                          Woops, you conveniently left out rushing TDs for Luck.

                          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                          Comment


                          • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                            Woops, you conveniently left out rushing TDs for Luck.
                            No "whoops", they aren't listed with passing stats... Not enough to make up for his 53% passing percentage and being 30 out of 32 QBs in QB rating.... Let me tell you, that is bad, very bad and I expect it to get worse as the season goes along.....

                            Comment


                            • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                              You love to rag on Luck's completion percentage. You do realize Peyton threw 56% in his rookie year, right? Not much different than Luck. Also Luck is averaging 41 attempts per game, and Peyton threw 36 per game. Not much of a difference but, you keep claiming it's some huge gap. Luck is also averaging more yards per attempt than Peyton did in his rookie year. Peyton's rookie year QB rating was 71.2 as well. If Peyton had some astounding and amazing rookie year, Luck is exactly in the same category.

                              Your arguments make no sense. Luck is exactly where Peyton was in his rookie year but I bet you didn't think he was going to be horrible. Neither is Luck going to be, as he isn't horrible now.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Browns-Colts thread

                                Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                                Woops, you conveniently left out rushing TDs for Luck.
                                Not surprising. He routinely leaves out facts that don't fit his rant.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X