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

Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

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

  • #31
    Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    Look at how bad Eli's Super Bowl teams were.
    Yeah, but they had a defense that became the Steel Curtain once it was playoff time.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

      The Colts have approximately 7,500 tickets to sell to Sunday's playoff game vs. the Cincinnati Bengals to avoid a blackout.
      No sellout = blackout....

      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...dium/21011855/
      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


      • #33
        Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

        Luck over Manning in the first three years no contest.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I don't know. When Manning was a third year player 14 years ago, you were still allowed to play pretty vicious defense. Makes a difference. Manning's early career stats would look a lot different if he would have started his career in 2012 instead of 1998.
          Look at the weapons Manning had vs Luck in year three, Luck's do not even come close to comparing to a that...

          Having Edge rushing for 1700+ yards and adding receptions of 600 yds really helped out, I think Marvin was also better at this point than TY is currently. If Allen was healthy maybe you could make the argument that Fleener and Allen are comparable to Pollard and Dilger, but all in all Peyton's weapons were better.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

            Originally posted by Bball View Post

            Yeah they're posturing no way is this going to be a blackout considering this will be the first game CBS4 will air of the Colts. They don't want it to start off as a blackout.

            As for Luck and Manning in their first three years I say Luck has been more successful not sure if I'd say he's been better.

            Back then the game was different and the Colts were in the AFC East where they had to deal with real competition. Back then Dolphins had Marino, Bills had Kelly, Pats had Bledsoe.

            The Jets I think had Vinny T. That I also factor in as well.


            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            That loss to Pitt was almost all on the offense. Dungy let Manning and Moore run the offense, didn't he? That game was lost because Pitt baited Peyton into playing hero ball with his arm while ignoring the red hot Edgerrin James in the process. The defense allowed 14 points to Pitt in the first quarter, but only allowed 7 after that. The offense blew that game. I don't think Dungy deserves too much blame for that since any HC has to butt out of the offense when they coach Peyton. If Peyton would have just handed the ball off to Edge more, we would have won that game.
            We got back in it then Vandy missed the FG to send it into OT. There were a lot of factors that weighed in our loss. The Defense wasn't one of them.

            If there's anything I blame Dungy about that game is not adjusting from the last meeting with the Steelers. Maybe he wasn't ready to come back from his son's death. But San Diego exposed us and the Steelers used it against us. That much was obvious to me in that game.
            Last edited by Basketball Fan; 12-30-2014, 07:03 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

              Either the game will sell out, or somebody will buy the remaining tickets. I really hope it sells out though. As down as I am on the Colts play as of late, I'm still trying to just enjoy the game. Hosting a playoff game is always special, and there are plenty of cities that would love to be able to do that. I think it will be a great crowd and a fun afternoon.

              As far as Luck's career vs Manning after 3 seasons, I'm having a really tough time comparing them despite the similarities. Luck has more wins plus a playoff win, which alluded Peyton for awhile. There are just way too many differences in the teams they played on, coaching, and the state of the NFL to really compare. The league was beginning to evolve into a passing league back then, but was different. Quarterbacks and receivers especially are more protected now.

              I remember Peyton's second season, he went several games into the season without even taking a sack. I remember after his first sack, he said after the game it was actually a relief because people would stop asking him about it. You can't say that for Luck's second season. At the end of the day, while they are different players, I've enjoyed watching them immensely. I think Colts fans are the luckiest fans in the NFL and I wouldn't want it any other way.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                There will be no blackout BTW I thought there was no longer a blackout rule in play for NFL games or was that bogus?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Look at the weapons Manning had vs Luck in year three, Luck's do not even come close to comparing to a that...

                  Having Edge rushing for 1700+ yards and adding receptions of 600 yds really helped out, I think Marvin was also better at this point than TY is currently. If Allen was healthy maybe you could make the argument that Fleener and Allen are comparable to Pollard and Dilger, but all in all Peyton's weapons were better.
                  Luck has had the luxury of playing in the pass happy, NFL where defense is pretty much prohibited. Even average QBs throw for 3-4000 yrds nowadays. Back in Peyton's third year. QBs rarely threw for much over 4,000 yds. The fact that they're comparable statistically, speaks more about what 18 was able to do in a more traditional/defensive minded era than what Luck has done in today's pass happy game IMO.

                  It doesn't diminish what Luck has done or is doing by any means. He's a very fine young QB. I think this playoff game will be big in terms of where he is in his development. Home playoff game against a team in Cincy that always chokes? Should be a prime chance to even his playoff record at 2-2.
                  Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-01-2015, 12:23 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                    The Raiders wanting to interview Pep Hamilton about their head coaching position tells me all I need to know about that organization. Please take him!!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Luck has had the luxury of playing in the pass happy, NFL where defense is pretty much prohibited. Even average QBs throw for 3-4000 yrds nowadays. Back in Peyton's third year. QBs rarely threw for much over 3,000 yds. The fact that they're comparable statistically, speaks more about what 18 was able to do in a more traditional/defensive minded era than what Luck has done in today's pass happy game IMO.

                      It doesn't diminish what Luck has done or is doing by any means. He's a very fine young QB. I think this playoff game will be big in terms of where he is in his development. Home playoff game against a team in Cincy that always chokes? Should be a prime chance to even his playoff record at 2-2.
                      I think that could be a valid argument, but I think that was not a problem for Peyton, he played in a pass happy system, his passing numbers really have not been affected over the years much besides his time in Denver, where they are super super pass happy.

                      In addition to what you are saying, I think the league has become a lot more pass oriented, and I think that forced the rules to change where defense is so soft now days.
                      Why so SERIOUS

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Back in Peyton's third year. QBs rarely threw for much over 3,000 yds.
                        In 2002, there were 17 3,000 yard passers. In 2014, there were 21.

                        Not that huge of a difference.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          In 2002, there were 17 3,000 yard passers. In 2014, there were 21.

                          Not that huge of a difference.
                          What about 4000 yards, probably a bigger difference though... The league is not only easier for passers now, but it is more of a pass first league as well, either way what Luck is doing is pretty amazing, and what Peyton did was awesome as well.
                          Why so SERIOUS

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                            I like Peyton, but I hope Luck ends up erasing every one of Manning's records.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                              Originally posted by Really? View Post
                              What about 4000 yards, probably a bigger difference though... The league is not only easier for passers now, but it is more of a pass first league as well, either way what Luck is doing is pretty amazing, and what Peyton did was awesome as well.
                              I actually MEANT 4,000 yds. Typo on my part lol.

                              I'm not diminishing Luck and his accomplishments as he's been a fine QB during his first 3 yrs. I'm just trying to put things into a little perspective when comparing the two I guess.

                              There's no doubt Luck has won more regular season games with lesser talent than Manning during his first 3 yrs. But Luck has also been afforded the opportunity to play in such a crappy division where he can get 5-6 easy wins as well.

                              Just saying we should look at everything in perspective as opposed to simply looking at numbers and saying "Ohh Luck was better by far".

                              At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Both are great QBs, Manning has moved on and Luck is here trying to put his stamp on the franchise, and is doing a great job this far. This Sunday is his chance to either add a notch to his belt, or provide some of his critics (the 3 that actually exist) more things to bring up.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Colts vs Bengals Sunday 1PM

                                http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ild-card-game/


                                Colts announce sellout for wild-card game

                                Last year, three of the four wild-card playoff games required some last-minute ticket-sale scrambling to avoid a blackout. This year, only one of the four round-one games ever was in question.

                                The questions are now gone with the Colts announcing at sellout of Sunday’s game against the Bengals. The announcement came just as the 72-hour window for selling all non-premium tickets was closing.

                                Owner Jim Irsay calls the development “exciting news” on Twitter. Perhaps he meant to say “troubling.”

                                It’s the playoffs. The playoffs. Earlier this week, 7,500 tickets remained unsold. Even now, it’s unknown whether all of the tickets actually were bought by fans, or whether this “exciting news” was aided by the purchase of unsold tickets by the team, the local CBS station, and/or sponsors at 34 cents on the dollar.

                                And with the political climate strongly against TV blackouts of NFL games, it wouldn’t be a surprise to learn that the team and the league found a way to ensure that, after a regular season with zero blackouts in 256 games, 25 percent of the wild-card round wouldn’t be televised locally.

                                The deeper question is why weren’t Colts fans clamoring to buy the tickets? The placement of the team at the top of the NFL’s second tier could have some Colts fans feeling apathetic. Sure, they’re dominating a weak division. But they’ve yet to show that they can compete with the best teams in the AFC.

                                The chance to change that perception/reality comes now. A win over the Bengals results in a trip to Denver or New England. Beating one of those teams in the postseason would go a long way toward proving that the new Colts have a chance to achieve the same kind of success that the old Colts enjoyed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X