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

Andrew Luck!!!!

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

  • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

    Well at least the Andrew Luck thread has turned from the **** on RGIII thread to the ***** on Peyton Manning thread. Heads up Russell Wilson, you're next.

    Comment


    • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      Something to be admired but you don't win championships in the regular season. The pressure is doubled in the post season. Peyton has had good games here and there in the post season but he flat out hasn't stepped it up more times than not.
      The body language is the exact same in those comebacks and in those defeats. Saying you can look at body language and tell how someone reacts under pressure, just doesn't realy make all that much sense when body language is constant eventhough outcomes differ.
      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        But I don't think you're ever going to hear a serious NFL observer say that Dilfer is a better QB than Marino. Likewise, you're not going to hear many people say that Eli is better than Peyton. It's obviously silly to use rings when you're comparing quarterbacks of vastly different skill sets. Eli isn't on Peyton's level because Peyton routinely plays at an elite level and gets into the playoffs every year, whereas Eli has often looked played so poorly that the Giants can't even make it to the postseason.

        But it's very fair to use postseason when you're comparing Brady and Manning because both of these guys are in the same elite class of quarterback. Both of these guys more or less have identical regular season success. They each win a boatload of games every season and almost always win their divisions. They are the elite of the elite as far as regular season quarterbacking is concerned. So what's left to differentiate between them? The playoffs, and the playoffs clearly tilt it in Brady's favor.

        You could compare their performances in the playoffs. That's my point. We have statistical measures that are directly comparable for individuals, that don't put so much emphasis on team wins/losses.

        You're skipping over individual measurables to employ team comparables, when comparing individuals.
        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          You could compare their performances in the playoffs. That's my point. We have statistical measures that are directly comparable for individuals, that don't put so much emphasis on team wins/losses.

          You're skipping over individual measurables to employ team comparables, when comparing individuals.
          But don't Colts fans like to bring up the fact that Manning is number 2 on the all time career regular season wins list?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_wi...back_%28NFL%29

          Any discussion about Manning's greatness is going to undoubtedly mention his team's incredible regular season success, as it should. In general, it seems as though Colt fans have no trouble using regular season team success to prop up Manning, but they want to throw team success out the window when the playoffs are brought up.

          Everything is important and should be brought into the debate. It's not an either/or thing. You can look at Brady and Manning's individual statistics, while also looking at their teams successes. In Brady and Manning's case, everything is super close except for the team success in the playoffs. That's enough to move the needle in Brady's favor, IMHO.

          If Manning had Brady's playoff record, then I have no doubt that it would be one of the first things that Colts fans would use in any debate.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-29-2013, 01:15 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

            My opinion as a Manning fan is.... he is the greatest regular season QB of all time... and a really, really, really good post-season QB. It sort of seems like there really hasn't been a QB come along who's equally impressive in both. Most elite QBs seem to shine in one or the other. Either they are inconsistent in the regular season, but step up several notches in the post-season.... or they rock the regular season regularly, and then sort of don't match the intensity in the playoffs and have early exits. Eli would be in the former group, and Peyton in the latter group. Sorta funny how opposite two brothers are.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-29-2013, 01:19 PM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              But don't Colts fans like to bring up the fact that Manning is number 2 on the all time career regular season wins list?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_wi...back_%28NFL%29

              Any discussion about Manning's greatness is going to undoubtedly mention his team's incredible regular season success, as it should. In general, it seems as though Colt fans have no trouble using regular season team success to prop up Manning, but they want to throw team success out the window when the playoffs are brought up.

              Everything is important and should be brought into the debate. It's not an either/or thing. You can look at Brady and Manning's individual statistics, while also looking at their teams successes. In Brady and Manning's case, everything is super close except for the team success in the playoffs. That's enough to move the needle in Brady's favor, IMHO.

              If Manning had Brady's playoff record, then I have no doubt that it would be one of the first things that Colts fans would use in any debate.
              Sure team success should be part of the conversation, I haven't said it shouldn't be. I'm still waiting for an explaination as to why team measurables are more important than individual measurables, when comparing individuals.

              Whenever this argument is had, individual playoff numbers get put on the back burner, and they usually stay there, while number of rings, number of one and dones, etc, are all argued first.
              Last edited by Since86; 08-29-2013, 01:28 PM.
              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                This is one of my favorite charts. It shows very well how Tom Brady's teams and Peyton Manning's teams have been virtually identical offensively during the postseason:

                http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...edition/21247/

                Brady's teams punt a little more while Manning's teams turn it over a little more. Manning's teams have had worse starting field position on average, but he has gained a little more yardage per drive than Brady's teams have, which is why their points per drive are virtually identical.

                Now should have Manning's offenses been better than Brady's offenses in the playoffs? Probably, but not quite as much as it would feel like on first instinct. Brady's offensive lines have almost always been better, and each have had inconsistent running games (Manning's in particular was awful in his later years with the Colts). Manning's receiving options on average have been quite a bit better, so it just depends on what you feel like you value more to determine how big the advantage was on talent around them.

                But what it does show is that the Colts losses have not been because the offense sputtered while the Patriots offense soared. They've been really close, but the Patriots defensive and special teams advantages have helped them win more postseason games.
                The fact that their playoff statistics are similar looks better for Brady. Think about it, Brady has played in three more Super Bowls and four more AFC Championship games. Those are presumably the most difficult of all playoff games.

                Brady has played in 24 playoff games. Of those 24 games, 7 have been the AFC championship game and 5 have been the Super Bowl. So half of Brady's playoff games have been either the AFCCC or Super Bowl. Manning has played in 20 playoff games. Of those 20, 3 of them have been AFC championship games and 2 of them have been Super Bowls. So 25% of his playoff games have either been the AFCCG or Super Bowl.

                Manning's numerous one and dones mean that the AFCCG and Super Bowl account for a relatively low percentage of his playoff games. OTOH, half of Brady's playoff games are either the AFCCG or Super Bowl. In essence, a far greater percentage of Brady's playoff games have been played against the super elite competition. Thus, the fact that their overall stats are similar is really a feather in Brady's cap as far as this debate is concerned. Brady has played in far more difficult games than Manning, yet has similar stats.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-29-2013, 01:39 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Sure team success should be part of the conversation, I haven't said it shouldn't be. I'm still waiting for an explaination as to why team measurables are more important than individual measurables, when comparing individuals.

                  Whenever this argument is had, individual playoff numbers get put on the back burner, and they usually stay there, while number of rings, number of one and dones, etc, are all argued first.
                  And I've never once said that team measurables are more important than individuals. As I said earlier, Eli has one more ring than Peyton, but there is no way he belongs in Peyton's class. Peyton is the superior QB for reasons that are pretty obvious.

                  But as far as Manning and Brady are concerned, their individual achievements are very similar. Both are statistically similar, both have won a ton of regular season games, etc etc. So if you're comparing two guys who are so similar, you look for something that's different so that you can give one of them the edge. When looking at these two quarterbacks, everything is pretty similar aside from the glaring difference in team playoff success. That's enough to move the needle in Brady's favor, IMHO. That's not saying that team playoff success is more important than individual metrics, because like I said, Eli is nowhere near Peyton. But team playoff success is certainly important enough to move the needle when you're comparing two guys who are basically identical everywhere else.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                    Peyton lost to some lousy "playoff" teams. A Miami team with Jay Fiedler as their QB, an 8-8 Charger team. I'm not saying we should've won more SB's, but we had too many one and done playoff runs
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      The body language is the exact same in those comebacks and in those defeats. Saying you can look at body language and tell how someone reacts under pressure, just doesn't realy make all that much sense when body language is constant eventhough outcomes differ.
                      Totally disagree. Like I said before, I used to yell at the TV(get your head up Manning) when Manning would hang his head and shake his head back and forth after a bad play or interception. Looked like he almost wanted to cry. I can't count how many times I've seen this. Used to drive me crazy that his confidence could be shaken that easily.
                      Last edited by presto123; 08-29-2013, 01:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        And I've never once said that team measurables are more important than individuals.
                        I didn't say you did. It's an observation I'm making based on the history of this debate.

                        When two players have similiar performances, and different team successes, it's a logical conclusion that the reason for the difference in team success would be the difference in the actual teams. That logic is usually rejected, and team success is trotted back out and waved in order to do so.
                        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                          Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                          Totally disagree. Like I said before, I used to yell at the TV(get your head up Manning) when Manning would hang his head and shake his head back and forth after a bad play or interception. Looked like he almost wanted to cry. I can't count how many times I've seen this. Used to drive me crazy that his confidence could be shaken that easily.
                          I know what you mean, but his behavior was that way in the wins as well. It's anecdotal evidence that is completely dependent on the person watching the behavior.
                          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I didn't say you did. It's an observation I'm making based on the history of this debate.

                            When two players have similiar performances, and different team successes, it's a logical conclusion that the reason for the difference in team success would be the difference in the actual teams. That logic is usually rejected, and team success is trotted back out and waved in order to do so.
                            Let me ask, what metric can be used to argue that Manning is better?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                              Imagine that ............ a Manning vs Brady discussion.

                              I thought we were at least a year removed from those.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Andrew Luck!!!!

                                Luck is a Colt... therefore he is better until proven otherwise...
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X