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 Broncos Divisional Round Game

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

  • #16
    Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

    Dunno how to feel about Luck, but there's no denying that Peyton's playoff performance history is spotty at best for someone with as much regular season success as he has had.


    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

      Better hope the weather is good. If it comes down to RBS we are in trouble. I think the Broncos win anyway sadly.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

        Frankly this game is gravy for me and much easier to handle on the nerves since the Colts are expected to lose. I would not be surprised if the Colts pull off an upset since #18 has got to be feeling all the pressure.

        While my personal feelings for Peyton are not great I can't deny the hours he put in on his craft so if he makes it to the big show once again I hope he gets his second ring.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          This is very odd for me since I am in the generation that I feel should absolutely love Peyton, 10 years old when he came into the league. But I find Luck infinitely more likable than Peyton. Everything about Peyton was/is a brand, I didn't find him genuine (and still don't), his rehearsal (I.E. it was planned and practiced in advance by Peyton) of the keep away on the record breaking touchdown earlier this year, while clever to some, was just completely boring and tedious to me and typical of who Peyton is. He's like the kid who you're friends with because he always had the newest Xbox game and his parents house was huge. Luck is like the kid who you would go over to his house just to hang out and play an old Nintendo game with.

          Peyton, and maybe more appropriately at this point, the Mannning name are all about their brand. Peyton the "person" is not a nice guy, he's never really been a nice guy. There are so many stories of Peyton being a jerk when he's dealt with one on one, which is totally fine because that is the way it is for a lot of athletes.

          But in many ways on a personal level, Luck is like the anti-Peyton. He doesn't care about his brand at all really. And he is in general (at least so far) a much more normal guy in public.

          Don't get me wrong here, I'm happy and thrilled we had Peyton for 14 years, but I genuinely hope Luck has the better career. I just like him a lot more as a person.
          From the few stories I've heard there might not be a bigger fraud in sports than Manning as far as the real person vs the image. I imagine if you ask most people in America they would say that Peyton is the boy next door, nice guy, high morals type of guy. I would say the majority of the Colt fan base wouldn't believe anything but even if you showed them proof otherwise. Personally, I just never trusted the guy to come through when the season is on the line in playoff situations. His body language and head shaking spoke volumes.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

            taking my threads I see guys ha
            Smothered Chicken!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

              What does not being a nice guy have to do with ANYTHING? Reggie Miller is universally PRAISED in the State of Indiana for what he did for the Pacers franchise, and that guy is one of the biggest ******** that professional sports has seen. As long as they aren't embarrassing themselves by doing something illegal, or profane, being an ******* off the court/field should be the least of any fans worries.

              As far as Manning being a "brand" is concerned, 80% of athletes are a "brand' these days. It's the modern day of how to sell yourself. Some athletes are good enough to be able to sell themselves as something more than just an athlete, it's hardly something to hold against them.

              It's interesting that many of you guys just didn't believe in Manning when it came to big games, because I always believed in him - even when he though he didn't come through quite often in the playoffs. Much like Reggie Miller, Manning always gave me hope even though he failed more often than he succeeded in the playoffs. A fan could argue until their blue in the face that Manning's actual numbers (production wise) are comparable to most great QBs in the playoffs. But that w-L record is clear as day. If you want to judge him off that, then that's fine.

              But to try and push him being a bad guy off the field, or someone that's unlikable because of his "brand" - that's a pushing it a bit.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                What does not being a nice guy have to do with ANYTHING? Reggie Miller is universally PRAISED in the State of Indiana for what he did for the Pacers franchise, and that guy is one of the biggest ******** that professional sports has seen. As long as they aren't embarrassing themselves by doing something illegal, or profane, being an ******* off the court/field should be the least of any fans worries.

                As far as Manning being a "brand" is concerned, 80% of athletes are a "brand' these days. It's the modern day of how to sell yourself. Some athletes are good enough to be able to sell themselves as something more than just an athlete, it's hardly something to hold against them.

                It's interesting that many of you guys just didn't believe in Manning when it came to big games, because I always believed in him - even when he though he didn't come through quite often in the playoffs. Much like Reggie Miller, Manning always gave me hope even though he failed more often than he succeeded in the playoffs. A fan could argue until their blue in the face that Manning's actual numbers (production wise) are comparable to most great QBs in the playoffs. But that w-L record is clear as day. If you want to judge him off that, then that's fine.

                But to try and push him being a bad guy off the field, or someone that's unlikable because of his "brand" - that's a pushing it a bit.

                That's the point. Maybe these guys should be a little less "universally praised". Being a good human being is more important than being a good athlete. Maybe not on the field, but in the places it really counts. The fact that Peyton may not be the nice guy everybody thinks he is IS relevant because he is the face of the NFL and the image may not match up to the real person. Many could care less because winning is valued above all else. This just shows how screwed up our value system in America really is.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                  Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                  That's the point. Maybe these guys should be a little less "universally praised". Being a good human being is more important than being a good athlete. Maybe not on the field, but in the places it really counts. The fact that Peyton may not be the nice guy everybody thinks he is IS relevant because he is the face of the NFL and the image may not match up to the real person. Many could care less because winning is valued above all else. This just shows how screwed up our value system in America really is.
                  While true, Manning isn't exactly creating headlines for anything negative outside of football. He hasn't been involved in any legal issues, or anything of the sort.

                  Also, I don't think Manning is the face of the NFL right now.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                    If Revenge of the Nerds were real life, Peyton Manning would be in the Alpha Beta house, which was the fraternity for jocks and popular kids. Luck would be in Lamda Lamda Lamda, which was the nerd fraternity. Luck would be the nerd that all the jocks made fun of and underestimated, until the athletic competitions started, and he would then kick all of their asses lol
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                      Despite being a huge Colts fan as long as I could remember, I never really liked Manning or Dungy unless they were on the field.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                        The difference between Luck and Manning is that Luck is not going to lose a game by getting tight the way Manning did. Peyton never seemed relaxed in playoff games even when he played well.

                        Luck is going to sling it and hold nothing back. He may lose and not play well but it won't due to being tight.

                        As for my prediction, the Broncos just have a much better TEAM and are playing at home in the altitude. Luck is a great QB but he is going to have to play the game of his life for the Colts to win. He isn't at the point in his career where he can do that yet.

                        Mules 30
                        Colts 20

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                          I'm nervous about the Broncos tight ends against our linebackers. Peyton is great at pinpointing weaknesses, and that's one he can exploit all day (like he did in the opener).

                          But I still think we have a chance. You never know. I think we have a better chance though if the weather conditions are adverse. That affects Manning more than Luck.

                          Who will Denver's big pass rushers line up against? That will influence my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            I'm nervous about the Broncos tight ends against our linebackers. Peyton is great at pinpointing weaknesses, and that's one he can exploit all day (like he did in the opener).

                            But I still think we have a chance. You never know. I think we have a better chance though if the weather conditions are adverse. That affects Manning more than Luck.

                            Who will Denver's big pass rushers line up against? That will influence my opinion.
                            Adverse weather conditions might affect Manning more than luck. But CJ anderson versus our rush defense greatly favors them over Herron versus their rush defense. I'm hoping for good weather. Maybe a bit of wind but thats it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                              Be honest, do you actually trust their running game? I don't. They're trying, they're trying so hard to make that running game work when they have to play NE again. But when push comes to shove, that running game I don't believe will work for them. And if poor weather conditions surface I will take Luck over Manning and Anderson. I just think we have a mindset that's better equipped to win in the postseason as well as the QB. We just don't have the talent yet on the lines.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Colts vs Broncos Divisional Round Game

                                I will be in Mile High for this one. Really excited, although I don't really hold out a great deal of hope that we will win.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X