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

ESPN week 3 power rankings

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

  • ESPN week 3 power rankings

    And the Colts are number one. Hope this isnt a jinx, because it usually is.


    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/powerr...on=2005&week=3




    Power Rankings: New No. 1


    ESPN.com


    ESPN.com's Power Rankings
    This week's rankings were determined by a poll of ESPN.com's NFL staff -- writers John Clayton, Len Pasquarelli, Michael Smith, NFL Insider Jeremy Green, Scouts Inc., and ESPN.com NFL editors Peter Lawrence-Riddell and James C. Black.
    Just two weeks into the season and we have a new No. 1 in the rankings. With an improved defense that has allowed only 10 points in two games, the Colts took over the top spot from the Patriots (who dropped to No. 4). The Steelers and Eagles check in at No. 2 and No. 3, both moving up with impressive wins.

    Three new teams entered the top 10 this week, led by the Bengals, who jumped from No. 12 to No. 7. Joining the Bengals are the Panthers (No. 8 from No. 14) and the Buccaneers (No. 10 from No. 19).

    The Vikings are the biggest losers, dropping from No. 13 all the way to No. 27. The Vikings have dropped 23 spots in just two weeks. On to the rankings. To view last week's rankings, click here.

    2005 Power Rankings: Week 3
    RK (LW)TEAMRECCOMMENT
    1 (2)Colts2-0-0It has to be a huge boost to the Colts to know they can win a game when Peyton Manning throws for only 122 yards.
    2 (3)Steelers2-0-0So, Ben Roethlisberger is going to struggle in his second year, huh? Well, a 153.6 passer rating after two games sure doesn't look like a struggle.
    3 (5)Eagles1-1-0One big game and everything is all smiles and high-fives again between McNabb and Owens in Philly.
    4 (1)Patriots1-1-0Just a sloppy game from the Patriots. Lots of penalties, poor special teams play, etc. -- not what you'd expect from the defending champs.
    5 (6)Chiefs2-0-0Two weeks into the season, they've failed to reach the 30-point mark ... and yet they're undefeated.
    6 (4)Falcons1-1-0Matt Schaub might have potential, but it goes without saying that the Falcons need Michael Vick healthy and in the lineup.
    7 (12)Bengals2-0-0After starting 1-4 in each of Marvin Lewis' first two seasons in Cincinnati, getting off to a fast start this year is huge.
    8 (14)Panthers1-1-0Panthers looked like they had a little chip on their shoulders Sunday and it worked, resulting in a big win over the Patriots.
    9 (7)Jaguars1-1-0Getting out of bed Monday morning couldn't have been any fun at all for Byron Leftwich.
    10 (19)Buccaneers2-0-0Looks like Jon Gruden has found the right running back for his offense.
    11 (17)Giants2-0-0Anyone who got Tiki Barber in their fantasy draft after 10 or 12 other RBs had already been picked got a steal.
    12 (18)Jets1-1-0Chad Pennington still doesn't look right, but the Jets still pulled out a needed win, and that's what is really important.
    13 (9)Bills1-1-0It'll be interesting to see how the QB situation unfolds in Buffalo. J.P. Losman is the QB of the future, but will they switch to Kelly Holcomb if he gives them a better chance to win now?
    14 (20)Broncos1-1-0Figures that if any team could get something out of Ron Dayne it would be the Broncos.
    15 (22)Seahawks1-1-0Seahawks are clearly a better team when Shaun Alexander is the focal point of the offense.
    16 (26)Redskins2-0-0So, apparently there was a pretty good reason the Redskins wanted to trade for Santana Moss.
    17 (8)Cowboys1-1-0Cowboys players and coaches must feel like they got punched in the gut.
    18 (10)Saints1-1-0The Giants were just the better team, but the Saints understandably looked worn down Monday night.
    19 (11)Chargers0-2-0He's still finding the end zone, but the Chargers need to get LaDainian Tomlinson (124 yards rushing, just 3.3 yards per carry, and no receptions) going at full speed.
    20 (21)Rams1-1-0It wasn't pretty, but any win on the road is a big deal for the Rams.
    21 (31)Bears1-1-0The Bears clearly have the best defense in the NFC North, which could be enough to get them to playoffs.
    22 (30)Titans1-1-0Talk about a dominating D. The Titans held Baltimore to 182 total yards and no first downs in the opening half.
    23 (23)Dolphins1-1-0The Dolphins aren't going to contend for a playoff spot, but they're clearly going to be more competitive than a lot of people thought.
    24 (16)Lions1-1-0Jeff Garcia's hurt, but that hasn't stopped some Lions fans from calling for Joey Harrington's backup. Only problem is that backup is rookie Dan Orlovsky.
    25 (15)Ravens0-2-0The Ravens aren't going to win many games when Jamal Lewis rushes for 9 yards on 10 carries.
    26 (24)Raiders0-2-0OK, so Moss was robbed of a TD, but they had numerous opportunities to win in Randy's home debut.
    27 (13)Vikings0-2-0Obviously he misses Randy Moss, but that can't completely explain a QB of Daunte Culpepper's caliber throwing eight INTs in two games.
    28 (32)Browns1-1-0The allure has worn off of road teams winning at Lambeau Field, but still an impressive first win for Romeo.
    29 (27)Cardinals0-2-0Two winnable games have resulted in two losses. Not the start Dennis Green anticipated.
    30 (25)Packers0-2-0With upcoming games vs. Tampa Bay, at Carolina, and vs. New Orleans, the Packers could put themselves in a hole that they can't dig out of.
    31 (28)49ers1-1-0Probably had no impact on Terrell Owens' play, but maybe Derek Smith should just keep his mouth shut next time.
    32 (29)Texans0-2-0They've already fired the offensive coordinator. Now the heat is all on the coach (Dom Capers) and the QB (David Carr).
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

  • #2
    Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

    'bout time!
    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

      Times like these make one happy the Colts play the Texans twice. Nevermind the fact the Ponies are also playing 'Zona and San Francisco this year as well. Of course, that's only fair when we'll also be playing the Steelers, Patriots, Chargers, and Bengals (Did I just list the Bengals as a strong opponent? I think I did.) later on this season.
      Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

        As much as I like this, I am a realist. I don't think we should be ranked #1 until our offense has gotten all the kinks worked out.

        Maybe I just hate ESPN so much that I have to find a problem. Colts should be lower, and Pacers should be Higher. Yeah maybe I just hate ESPN

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

          Bengals and Steelers have looked like world beaters but against lesser opponents so it's hard to gauge those two but they have looked almost flawless.


          After playing against some of the tougher D's in the league. we should really see a lot more fluid offense this week. This could a breakout ,track meet game, ...or maybe we will see the Romeo really did have Manning's number and slow him down some, not all the way but enough to make it another day where we have to rely more heavily on the run.

          Why Not Us ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

            I think the Steelers should be 1. They look damn good. Even though the opponent was so so, they look reallly good.
            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: ESPN week 3 power rankings

              Originally posted by Destined4Greatness
              As much as I like this, I am a realist. I don't think we should be ranked #1 until our offense has gotten all the kinks worked out.

              Maybe I just hate ESPN so much that I have to find a problem. Colts should be lower, and Pacers should be Higher. Yeah maybe I just hate ESPN
              I'm a realist and I know that our offense will get on track. I just hope and pray that our Defense isn't teasing us.

              The Steelers have now 3 very good rb's. Agaisnt them we need to be able to contain their running game and still put pressure on big Ben.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                This is a Power Ranking i can agree with.

                Steeler's ranking is deserved. Their test comes this weekend.
                :thepacers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                  We haven't been tested at all. Tennessee and Houston are bad teams.
                  We're playing good smash mouth football and we're looking good defensively. But those teams are so soft up front that its hard to tell.

                  Our "game of the season" is this week, but its way too early for a "game of the season". Still, I figure that we'll beat NE this weekend but find yet another way to lose to them at home in the AFC Championship game.

                  I just can't figure out why a team coming off a 15-1 season and scheduled to play the NFC North was rated so low (#5) at the beginning of the season.
                  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: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                      Originally posted by btowncolt
                      Does that mean we couldn't put a Week 3 ESPN Power Rankings banner up next year?
                      Sorry btown, but that is out of the question.
                      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                        ESPN 2005 week 3 power ranking champs in the house yeah boy suck on the fumes eat it dog diggity round house kickin yeee hawww!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                          CBS's Power Rankings, for comparison. And for Jay.

                          http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8869777

                          IndyToad
                          Falling off a cliff

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN week 3 power rankings

                            I'm not sure if it is more surprising to see the Colts at #1 or the Bengals at #7.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X