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

Next SI: features Manning and Brady

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

  • Next SI: features Manning and Brady



    Face Off

    Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? The NFL's two best quarterbacks. One has the stats, the other the titles. Who's better? And who wins Monday night? It's the ultimate fan debate

    When Peyton Manning got his first taste of organized sports, he couldn’t win. As a five-year-old in a coach-pitch baseball league in New Orleans, Manning played for a team that routinely was on the wrong end of lopsided scores, which frustrated the already competitive young slugger. What really chafed the middle child of a famous NFL quarterback, however, was the illusory insinuation that he couldn’t lose. “They would get hammered by something like 17–1, and then the coach would gather the players after the game and tell them it was a tie,” Peyton’s father, Archie, recalls. “Then we’d be in the car driving home, and Peyton would say, ‘We didn’t tie; we got killed!’ It wasn’t so much the losing that drove him nuts; it was the coach saying it didn’t happen. Peyton was one of those kids who always knew the score.”
    Twenty-four years later, as Manning prepares for another high-stakes matchup with the only other NFL quarterback in his class, he is painfully aware of his record in games against Tom Brady: 0–6, including playoff defeats the past two seasons. Yet Manning has had so many great seasons that the debate about which of the two is the better quarterback rages on. When Brady’s New England Patriots host Manning’s Indianapolis Colts next Monday night in the most anticipated matchup of the 2005 regular season, it’ll be hard to take two steps into a sports bar without hearing someone proclaim one or the other’s superiority.
    Typically, each is measured by what he supposedly lacks in comparison with the other: Brady, 28, owns three Super Bowl rings but can’t match Manning’s record-setting numbers and arm; Manning has the stats but can’t win the big one. The truth is, they are very much alike in the most important intangibles—toughness, consistent excellence and passion for the game.
    “He’s similar to me in that he’s never really satisfied,” Brady says. “It’s like, Who cares what you did last week? As a competitor you always want to be the best, but I realize that to be thought of up there with a guy like him is a pretty huge compliment. I’m always interested to see how he’s doing, and in a strange way I kind of root for him too.”
    Each is a good, sincere man who is secure enough to feel a genuine appreciation for a fellow legend in the making. They’ve bonded over beers and congratulatory e-mails; they’ve compared notes on handling the trappings of celebrity; they love each other’s work.
    Over the summer Brady watched tapes of all of Manning’s games from the 2004 season, admiring his NFL-record 49 touchdown passes. Brady also marveled at Manning’s commanding performance in the Colts’ 2005 season opener, a 24–7 victory over the Baltimore Ravens.
    Manning has been obsessed with studying professional quarterbacks since he was a kid idolizing Archie, who played 14 NFL seasons, mostly for the New Orleans Saints, after a legendary career at Ole Miss. And he is so respectful of the position that he will stand up for the league’s most maligned signal-callers. “Peyton says playing quarterback in the NFL is the toughest job in sports,” Archie says. “When a guy like Drew Bledsoe has a couple of rough years and people say, ‘He’s done,’ it really bothers him.
    “But he also understands that if you ever forget why you’re good—if you think it’s just you—you’re in trouble. This isn’t tennis or golf; playing quarterback is a very dependent position.”
    That’s true, but fans ultimately turn to quarterbacks and drive the arguments over who’s better—Montana or Marino? Marino or Elway? Elway or Young? Young or Aikman? Aikman or Favre? This era’s top dogs similarly divide the public as they conquer. Manning is the prickly perfectionist whose outrageous productivity, aided by a stellar supporting cast, makes him the darling of the fantasy-football obsessed. Brady is most emblematic of guts and poise under pressure, yet the way he blends into an offense that is otherwise without stars resonates with our commitment to the communal spirit.
    Among the many qualities Manning and Brady share is a desire to get out from under their images. Manning, who wants you to know he’s more than an automaton, partied with Kid Rock in Nashville after a December 2003 victory over the Tennessee Titans. Brady, who wants you to know he’s not a hero without faults, admitted (sort of) to a GQ writer last summer that he surfs the Internet for porn.
    “Some of that is wanting to let people know they’re human,” says Pittsburgh Steelers running back Jerome Bettis, who’s friendly with both players. “Peyton is like, Hey, I’m not uptight like you think. Brady’s saying, I’m not this poster boy. I’m normal.”
    In fact, each quarterback has unabashedly spoofed himself—Manning in popular MasterCard commercials in which he turns the tables on adulatory fans, and Brady in a surprisingly deft hosting stint on Saturday Night Live last April. In the show’s last skit Brady gets grief from Manning (played by Seth Myers) and Donovan McNabb’s mother, Wilma (played by Kenan Thompson), with the Manning character citing his superior statistics as proof that he should have gotten the hosting gig.
    This year, as Brady’s father, Tom Sr., points out, “The funny thing is, it’s a role reversal. Tommy’s got all the yards [2,020 after seven games, third in the NFL], and Peyton has his team at the top of the league.”
    When I met Manning, in 1999, midway through his breakout second season, he was like that guy in the recent TV ad who, in his first job out of college, answers his cellphone in the elevator and hears his derelict buddies howling, “Schmitty!” Though Manning was still turning his underwear inside out to avoid doing laundry, he had already begun to mature professionally. “I’ve put a lot of thought into being a leader,” he said then, citing, among other things, his insistence on having his locker placed amid those of his offensive linemen.
    After emerging from fourth-string obscurity to earn his first of two Super Bowl MVP trophies in February 2002, Brady struck me as a man almost tormented by his exponentially growing fame: It was a blast, to be sure, but every trip on Donald Trump’s jet and every beefcake photo spread separated him from the team framework that was at the heart of the Patriots’ success. “There’s a lot of workmanship in Tommy’s approach to being a leader,” says his older sister Nancy, a Boston pharmaceutical rep who once moonlighted as Tom’s personal assistant. “He consciously makes sure not to put himself above the team. The locker room really is where he’s most comfortable—it’s probably the one place in the world where he does feel like he’s one of the guys, and he finds peace in that.”
    Brady also put his money where his heart is: Last spring, a year after Manning had signed a seven-year, $98 million deal with Indianapolis (including a $34.5 million signing bonus), Brady agreed to a comparatively discounted six-year, $60 million extension (including a $14.5 million bonus) with New England. “What he wants more than anything is to win about eight Super Bowls,” Tom Sr. says of his son, “and you can’t be winning eight Super Bowls if you’re taking 70 percent of the money.”
    Pay stubs, passer ratings, parades in February—they’re all fair game when dissecting the most dynamic duel the NFL has to offer. Choosing one quarterback above the other isn’t necessarily the point, so uniquely situated is each player for his particular skills. “I’ll give you Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan,” says Jacksonville Jaguars linebacker Mike Peterson, who played with Manning in Indy. “Take which one you want.” Adds Steelers defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau, “They’re two of the very best quarterbacks ever.”
    “Everybody will probably always compare Tommy to Peyton,” Nancy Brady says. “That’s the nature of sports; it’s where great debates are made.” Last month, while attending a Boston Celtics–New Jersey Nets exhibition game at the Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, Conn., Nancy looked across the aisle and noticed a pair of middle-aged women sitting together. One wore a Brady jersey, the other a Manning replica. “I thought it was adorable,” she says.
    Come Monday there won’t be warm and fuzzy feelings coming from the Gillette Stadium sidelines. Bonded by circumstance and mutual appreciation as they might be, Manning and Brady know that in the games that matter, there can be no ties.

    TALE OF THE TAPE MANNING BRADY
    HEIGHT, WEIGHT 6'5", 230 ; 6'4", 225
    DRAFTED 1998 First overall (Tennessee) ; 2000 Sixth round (Michigan)
    CAREER STARTS 119 ; 69
    PASSING YARDS PER GAME 260.4 ; 231.1
    TOUCHDOWN PASSES PER GAME 1.91 ; 1.49
    YARDS PER PASS ATTEMPT 7.59 ; 7.03
    PASS ATTEMPTS PER INTERCEPTION 32.7 ; 40.5
    CAREER PASSER RATING 92.6 ; 88.1
    RED ZONE PASSER RATING 92.6 ; 97.7
    THIRD-DOWN CONVERSION PCT. 41.1 ; 40.0
    FOURTH-DOWN CONVERSION PCT. 40.1 ; 33.0
    PERCENTAGE OF DRIVES RESULTING IN A SCORE 39.5 ; 34.0
    TOP TARGET Marvin Harrison ; Troy Brown
    (RECS. PER GAME) (6.3) ; (3.7)
    WINS AFTER TRAILING IN THE FOURTH QUARTER 19 ; 10
    REGULAR-SEASON RECORD 73-46 (.613) ; 52-17 (.753)
    POSTSEASON RECORD 3-5 ; 9-0

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/pre...252Findex.html

  • #2
    Re: Next SI: features Manning and Brady

    Originally posted by IUColtPacerFan
    WINS AFTER TRAILING IN THE FOURTH QUARTER 19 ; 10
    Thought that was very interesting. Peyton almost doubles TB.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Next SI: features Manning and Brady

      Originally posted by Since86
      Thought that was very interesting. Peyton almost doubles TB.
      Yeah, but Peyton has nearly double the games as Brady. And the argument could be made that Brady just doesn't find himself in a losing situation very often.
      House Name: Pacers

      House Sigil:



      House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Next SI: features Manning and Brady

        Originally posted by Diamond Dave
        ...And the argument could be made that Brady just doesn't find himself in a losing situation very often.
        Because the Patriots' defense has traditionally been better than the Colts' defense...

        Comment

        Working...
        X