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

Who should have been Superbowl MVP

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

  • Who should have been Superbowl MVP

    I thought Rhodes or Addai were more deserving of the MVP. Or even the collective "Indianapolis defense". Peyton played a good game but not a MVP kind of game. 240 yards and 1 touch down is not that great!
    ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

  • #2
    Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

    Originally posted by pacerwaala View Post
    I thought Rhodes or Addai were more deserving of the MVP. Or even the collective "Indianapolis defense". Peyton played a good game but not a MVP kind of game. 240 yards and 1 touch down is not that great!
    He managed the game very well. Outside of that one int (that sure looked like a ball he should not have thrown) he was the general behind the dismantling of the Bears' defense.

    That said... Rhodes and Addai were very good. But what about the blocking for them?

    Peyton said it best when he talked about this being a team win.

    Peyton was probably the one guy you could make an argument for deserving the award solo. Otherwise, there were lots of people doing their parts and making big plays when they had their opportunities.

    And has there ever been a better receiver than Marvin at those sideline catches? (Man, I was so hoping he'd get a ball thrown at him in the endzone (A TD catch for Marvin in the SB would've been great)).

    -Bball
    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


    • #3
      Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

      Well, overall the defense - but there wasn't that one player there.

      Manning was as good of a choice as anyone. He managed the game and did the same thing as in Baltimore - when it started looking like it wouldn't take a lot of points to win, went to conservative game plan. Didn't have the numbers but managed the game.

      If Addai had gotten those cleanup yards at the end of the game instead of Rhodes he might have gotten it but a big chunk of this game was Manning finally winning the big one - someone else would have had to do something dominant to take it away from him and nobody did.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

        I think it's Jeff Saturday in a walk. Peyton was almost never touched, and how many times did Addai or Rhodes get 8 yards up the middle before they even had a finger on them. I should have been text messaging Saturday all night instead of celebrating.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

          Tough to pick - I was voting for Addai. But you have to figure Manning would get the nod unless someone else had an over the top great game.

          What a great team effort.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

            A great team game. Colts are the MVP. What a game.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

              I thought it would have been Hayden for his INT for a TD that really took any and all life out of the Bears, or Dom with a hundred yards and a TD, but Peyton is as deserving as anyone, mostly for his season, career, and game against NE, not that he didn't play great today, but I thought there were better individual performances today.
              Play Mafia!
              Twitter

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                i think it had to be peyton... because he's the face/voice of the team and it was a total team win. defense was spectacular (essentially made one mistake the whole game: the run which led to the TD) addai was awesome and rhodes was unbelievable. saturday was great. so how do you give it to just one of those guys other than peyton who is most definely the commander on the field? i think peyton deserved it as much as everyone.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                  How often does a guy get 120 yards rushing and NOT win the SuperBowl MVP trophy?

                  Unfortunately for Rhodes, it all boiled down to name recognition.

                  But anybody that watched the game realizes that he was far-and-away the best player on the field all game long. (not that the other RB was chopped liver, and that might have causes some voters to split thier RB votes.)
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                    I vote for Rex Grossman, he did real well for the Colts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                      Rex Grossman. MVP of the game for the Colts. Thats only about the third time I have sat down and watched him I didn't realize a starting QB in this league could be that bad. Man he really sucks.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                        Of course, it really doesn't matter ... but ...

                        I don't know. If you take a real look at it, all those running yards and halfback receptions aren't possible if the Bears aren't playing that incredibly conservative defense.

                        Why did they do that? Easy -- Manning, Harrison and Wayne.

                        And, of course, you can't pass the ball if you can't run the ball.

                        So, what does it all mean? It's a team -- giving the MVP to the team's leader? Not so bad a call.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                          I've been absorbing this all... checking out different portions of the game from my recordings... checking out highlights on TV... reading recaps...etc..

                          It's easy to say Rhodes because of his final numbers and especially his work late in the game. He was awesome in crunch time. But when you re-watch earlier in the game (and also do some stat checking) you see Addai had an awesome game as well (some of which might've been forgotten due to what Rhodes did later in crutch time). He had some huge receptions and runs. And he has that knack for always getting an extra yard that you didn't think he would get. Those 10 receptions that Addai hauled in were important... the Bears were giving us that and we took it. And IIRC he picked up some important YAC's.

                          Those guys were each so important that they probably divided the vote a little. And then Manning directed the attack so you have to consider him up in the mix. And then on defense who didn't make a play in one form or another?

                          It would be hard to argue co-MVP's for Rhodes and Addai. And Rhodes getting a Superbowl MVP would've made for a great storyline. But it was such a team win that (as said above) that choosing Manning (as the team leader) is hard to argue with as well.

                          And I've seen the commercial a couple of times already- Tony Dungy AND Dominic Rhodes just won the Superbowl and are going to Disneyland.

                          -Bball

                          http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...702050410/1100
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                            Dom played great, Addai played great, the entire defense played great (highlighting Sanders, Hayden, McFarland). But I think it's too obvious that Peyton is the MVP. It was said earlier in this thread, and I think it was spot on--someone would have to had an all-time performance to take it away from Manning, and with it being such a team effort, no one really did.

                            Besides, no one else even has a commercial!
                            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Who should have been Superbowl MVP

                              Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                              How often does a guy get 120 yards rushing and NOT win the SuperBowl MVP trophy?

                              Unfortunately for Rhodes, it all boiled down to name recognition.

                              But anybody that watched the game realizes that he was far-and-away the best player on the field all game long. (not that the other RB was chopped liver, and that might have causes some voters to split thier RB votes.)
                              I thought Addai was better myself.

                              He got all his yards when the Bears were still tackling. Dungy put Rhodes in once the Colts went up because he hangs onto the ball better and by then the defense was worn out - could've drove a truck through some of those holes.

                              Not to discount what he did but Addai's yards were tough - most of Rhodes' were relatively easy.

                              If it wasn't Manning it's Addai IMO.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X