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

The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

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

  • The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

    How many years in a row has a top-seeded team "gotten rusty" and lost (or barely beaten) a team it should be able to beat?

    This year, it was patently obvious just how bad the first round bye is for teams - the two top-seeded NFC teams won close games (Chicago in overtime), the two top-seeded AFC teams lost.

    Last year, Chicago and Indy lost at home in the second round, but a #1 (Seattle) got to the SuperBowl.

    The year before, Pittsburgh needed overtime (and a missed Jets FG at the end of regulation) to escape (with a 15-1 regular season record). The Patriots and the NFC teams did blow out their Wild Card weekend visitors, however.

    The year before that, the Patriots needed a late field goal to beat Tennessee, and the Colts upset the Chiefs; in the NFC the Rams, at home, went to a second overtime and lost, and the Eagles had to go to overtime to win.

    And on and on...

    That's my opinion. Your thoughts?

    But I don't know how to implement it. My preference would be to make the playoffs for the eight division champs only. But "Wild Card" weekend is a big money maker, so that will never happen. I guess the NFL will need to further dilute its playoffs (a la NBA/NHL) and add four more playoff teams. I still think that with only a sixteen game season, that the regular season would still mean something in football, unlike the nearly-meaningless 82-game warmup in the NBA that, prior to recent expanion, only eliminated a handful of teams from the playoffs.
    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


  • #2
    Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

    Well they're going to be close games, b/c you're playing a good playoff team, who's got momentum after a Wild Card win. I think one is over confidence from both the media, fans and the teams themselves. You're the favorite to win, everyone is expecting you to win, and you're thinking you SHOULD win. This motivates the team coming in b/c they have heart and want to prove the doubters wrong. This all puts a lot of pressure on the home teams and a lot of them get caught off guard early, or play tight.. and that comes back to bite them late. You throw in experience and turnovers and anything can happen!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

      Its not that the first round bye is bad its just that the AFC is so damn tough, so many good teams.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

        I don't like the idea of 16 playoff teams. You already had 8-8 teams in the playoffs and there have been 1 or 2 7-9 teams in the past. Until another rd of expansion, I'd hold the number at 12. Otherwise you'll end up with a 6-10 team making it one of these days.

        And expecting them to go to just the 8 division winners is, as you said, not gonna happen.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
          Well they're going to be close games, b/c you're playing a good playoff team, who's got momentum after a Wild Card win.
          But why don't the #1 and #2 seeds have momentum? Because the NFL makes them take a week off.

          Smart coaches have learned to live with the risk of playing their starters *even after* clinching home field or the bye, so that momentum is only interrupted for one week, not longer. Resting your starters in weeks #16 and #17 of the regular season just compounds the problem.

          Football - especially offensive and defensive line play (and remember, football games are won in the trenches) is very much about "being in a rhythm." Bye weeks destroy that rhythm, momentum.

          Its not a reward to the teams with the best regular season records, its a punishment.
          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


          • #6
            Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

            Oh please every head coach in teh game would want a bye if they could have one. Or else after a team won their division they would just stop winning so they wouldn't get stuck with it.

            Ask the Pats if they would have liked a bye this year, my guess yes, since they have only won a superbowl in years they have had a bye.

            In 04-05, The 1st and 2nd seeds in both AFC and NFC advanced to the Conference Championships. Looks like the Bye helped.

            Last year, Denver won after their bye, so did Seattle

            And of course the bears and saints held serve this year.

            So in the last 3 Years, the 12 teams with a bye had 8 win their first game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

              Jay the stats over the years show that the teams with a week off win 80% of the time. However the trend is much different as the past few seasons it is much different more like 50%. I think about 4 years ago 85% of the time the team with a bye won. Also there used to be a lot more blowouts - but not in the past few seasons.

              Not sure what it all means.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                I think that there is more parity in the NFL and thats why there are more upsets and close games. The first round bye is good for some teams aned bad for others. When you look at the Steelers last year they went into the playoffs as the hottest team in the the league and didnt stop rolling. If they would have had a bye they might have cooled off and perhaps not gone all the way. There are other teams who are banged up that really needed the bye. For the most part I like the system. And wildcard weekend makes alot more meaningful late season game. Jay i'm supprised you of anybody would want to elimate wildcard weekend, if we didnt have it the Steelers wouldn't have even had a chance to win it all last year!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                  But "Wild card weekend" cost us momentum the year before, when we were 15-1.

                  I'm raising the issue in a year the Steelers aren't even in the playoffs. I have no vested interest (at least for this year) in the outcome of this discussion...

                  Several times in the Cowher era, we were left with a great regular season record, a bye week, and dud in the playoffs.

                  It was a long-running joke among Steelers fans that we were looking forward NOT having home field advantage (and *that's* what the coaches really want, not the bye that comes with it) because HFA hadn't done us any good in the last decade (because we never played the same after the bye week, even if we happened to win the second round game.)

                  The Colts, this year, are now in an excellent position to repeat the precedent the Steelers set - a great regular season record (what were you, 14-2 last year?) and early playoff exit, followed by a less impressive regular season record and better playoff performance. Not that either team was losing regular season games "on purpose" - the Steelers battled injuries at OL, QB, RB and on defense; the Colts run defense had a late season slump. Most importantly, each team was able to keep its late-season momentum in place, without interruption.

                  The "best" seeds are #3 and #4: to be a division champion, but without one of the two best records in the conference.

                  Is it parity, or is the system designed to penalize the top-performing regular season teams, and that's why the games are close/ competitive?

                  Obviously, the close games are good for ratings and fan interest. And the difference between a playoff contender and a team sitting at home is often just one or two possessions over a 16-game season.

                  "Any given Sunday."
                  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: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                    You need to quit looking at the last few years. Besides the last few years the Steelers they had the bye, and they ended up losing to the other team that had the bye. Seems like the system works.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                      I don't like the idea of 16 playoff teams. You already had 8-8 teams in the playoffs and there have been 1 or 2 7-9 teams in the past. Until another rd of expansion, I'd hold the number at 12. Otherwise you'll end up with a 6-10 team making it one of these days.

                      And expecting them to go to just the 8 division winners is, as you said, not gonna happen.
                      I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain that a 7-9 team has never made the NFL playoffs.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                        Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                        I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain that a 7-9 team has never made the NFL playoffs.
                        You are correct. The Giants were almost the first this year, but they finished 8-8. There have been other teams who have already wrapped up the division title and were one game under 0.500 going into the last regular season game, but they have always managed to win that game to finish at 0.500 and spare the NFL a bit of embarassment for having a losing team advancing. That only happened in the strike-shortened season.

                        http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...playoffs_x.htm
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                          I think that the lack of advantage for the bye week team is going along with a lack of advantage for the home team in the playoffs in general. Parity rules. With free agency, fast-changing rosters and severe financial constaints the difference between the middle-of-the-pack teams and the top teams is very slight even when the top team has home field.

                          100% of coaches and players prefer the bye week due to injury recovery and added preparation. Having a "full" first round with everyone playing would just assure that even fewer of the best teams are able to survive a subpar performance that obliterates their tiny talent edge over their opponent.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                            I don't think it is a disadvantage to have a week off. One week off is not going to make a team "rusty." However, when the top seeds make the critical mistake of resting their starting in week 17 and even in week 16 that is when the "rust" sets in. 1 week isn't anything compared to the NCAA when poor Ohio State had to wait near 60 days, 2 freakin months before a championship game. 1 week isn't anything. IMOThen NFL is a very close, in competition game, more then any other sport. It's rare (if ever) you see a team just run over the other teams, all the way to the Superbowl. In baseball and basketball we see it quite often Lakers and Yankees have done it numerous times. I think we forget why there is so many "upsets" in the NFL: it's one and out. There are no re-dues or best of 5/7 series like in the NBA or NFL. The one and out does it more then rust, look at March Madness; it's one and out and there are MANY MANY upsets through the tournament. It's hard to show up every single game especially in football.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The NFL needs to eliminate the "first round bye".

                              Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                              I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain that a 7-9 team has never made the NFL playoffs.
                              You're right - could've swore Dallas got in at 7-9 one year but I just checked and they were 8-8 in 1999.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X