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

SI.com:The South has Risen

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

  • SI.com:The South has Risen

    Some great quotes in here by Polian and others. It's nice we have a pretty favorable salary cap situation, because this division is going to be tough for awhile. This is a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. Houston has had a lot of injuries, so that may thwart them in the very near term. If they get a solid running back, they are going to be a *****. I think the title is a bit misleading, because we still are atop the division. The other teams give up some major props.
    The South has risen

    How Jags, Texans and Titans caught up to Colts

    Posted: Friday September 28, 2007 11:02AM; Updated: Friday September 28, 2007 12:29PM


    Matt Schaub has brought new life to the Texans' offense. He has a passer rating of 100.9 after three games.
    AP




    In its first five seasons of existence, the AFC South was the NFL's version of simple division. Any way you did the math, the bottom line always came out the same. It was the Indianapolis Colts, and then everyone else.
    The AFC South was owned by the Colts. From 2002 to 2006, the Colts went 60-20 (.750) in the regular season, won four division titles and went to the playoffs every year. Last season, of course, Indianapolis won its long-awaited Super Bowl championship.

    Indy's three division opponents -- Jacksonville, Tennessee and Houston -- weren't collectively just also-rans, they were almost afterthoughts. During that same five-year span, the Jaguars, Titans and Texans combined to go 104-136 (.433), making just three playoff trips with one division title (Tennessee in 2002). They produced just four winning seasons out of a possible 15, as opposed to the Colts' five-of-five showing in that category.

    But have you seen the AFC South lately? Somebody's all grown up and no longer looking like the little kid brother(s) that you remember them as. This isn't Peyton Manning and the three dwarfs any more. Through three weeks of the 2007 season, the AFC South is on the rise and making a strong case as the NFL's best and toughest division. To wit:

    • Every AFC South team boasts a winning record through three games, which represents half of the AFC's eight winning teams. The AFC South is the only division in the NFL with more than two winning teams.

    • The AFC South is a combined 9-3, with all three of those losses resulting from head-to-head play within the division. No other division in the league has more than seven combined wins.

    • The division is 6-0 against non-division opponents, with a 4-0 mark against NFC teams and a 2-0 record against the AFC.

    • Houston is 2-1 after three games for the first time in its six-year franchise history. Tennessee is 2-1 for the first time since 2003, and the Colts are 3-0 -- so what else is new? -- for the fourth time in the past five seasons.

    The Texans being winners ranks as one of the early-season surprises in the NFL, and the Titans' start merely continues a turnaround in Nashville that began in last year's second half, when Tennessee ran off six consecutive wins after a 2-7 start. As for Jacksonville, the Jaguars are also 2-1 and coming off an impressive upset at Denver in Week 3.

    "I think people around the league realize you've got four good teams in this division,'' Texans general manager Rick Smith said Wednesday. "We're early in the season. It's heading into Week 4. But I certainly believe we're going to have a tough division to compete in, from top to bottom.''

    The Colts' division dominance is difficult to understate. In the 88 weeks that the AFC South has existed (17 per regular season), Indy has led or shared for the division lead in 81 of them, including the last 46 consecutively. That's an astounding record of success, but the Colts owning first place isn't the given that it once was.

    Indy is 25-7 against its three division opponents since realignment begat the AFC South, but the tide really began changing last December, when it lost at Tennessee (20-17), at Jacksonville (44-17) and at Houston (27-24) in the span of four games. At 12-4 in the regular season, the Colts had enough of a lead to survive their 3-3 division mark last year, but a new, more competitive era was launched in the AFC South.

    "In the case of our football team, winning that game last year, and the way we ended the season with a two-game winning streak, really carried us into this season,'' said Smith, whose Texans lost 30-24 at home to the Colts last Sunday, ending their four-game, two-season winning streak.

    No team in the NFL knows the strength of this year's AFC South better than New Orleans, which lost at Indy 41-10 in the season-opener, and had its home-opener spoiled 31-14 by Tennessee on Monday night. I asked a veteran Saints source to evaluate the AFC South's strength, and the areas he pinpointed were the quality of the division's quarterbacks, as well as its young and aggressive defensive lines.

    "It starts with the quarterbacks, because everybody in that division has a good one,'' the Saints source said. "Manning is Manning, but Vince Young played at a Pro Bowl level the other night (against the Saints). And I really like [Matt] Schaub and what he has done in Houston so far. By the end of the season I think he could be a real difference maker. The Jaguars have David Garrard, and he's an upgrade over [Byron] Leftwich for them because he can do more things for you.

    "On defense, all four teams have active, young-legged lines that will really hit you, and they all can manufacture hits on the quarterback while rushing just four guys. There aren't many teams that can do that. It's a hard thing to do in this league, but when you can rush four and play coverage, it makes it difficult to play those teams. You don't see a lot of big plays getting made against those defenses.''

    Lessons learned in the course of facing Manning twice a year have sunk in deeply, Titans defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz said. You don't try to beat him by blitzing him, because he'll burn you with his quick release. Keep the Colts in front of you and you have a chance.

    "We're all pretty familiar by now with what Indy does,'' said Schwartz, whose Titans lost to the Colts 22-20 at home in Week 2, but split last season's series 1-1. "All of us play the same way against the Colts. We play a lot of Cover Two and try to manage the game. And the reason is because we've had our butts kicked so many times. There's no secret formula. Guys in this division just know what doesn't work against them. Nobody has anything to shut down the Colts. I don't think you can even do that. But we've figured out what doesn't work, and we stay away from that stuff.''

    Building a defense that can challenge the Colts' high-octane offense has been Job One in Houston. That's why the Texans, as they explained at the time, made the controversial No. 1 pick of defensive end Mario Williams over running back Reggie Bush in the 2006 draft. The Texans in their past four drafts have selected five defenders in the first round: defensive tackle Amobi Okoye this year, Williams, defensive tackle Travis Johnson in 2005, cornerback Dunta Robinson and linebacker Jason Babin in 2004.

    "I was asked by some reporters during training camp who the most improved team was going to be, and I said 'the Houston Texans, without question will be the most improved team in the league,'" Colts president Bill Polian said Thursday. "They've had lots of high draft choices, and [Texans second-year head coach] Gary Kubiak has had time to get his system in place.

    "They've got a great coaching staff, and (offensive coordinator) Mike Sherman has done a great job with that offensive line. He's getting results using the same players, but with a different approach. And Schaub just fits much better than the other quarterback (ex-Texan David Carr), because he's very used to playing that offense, having been in it his entire football career. On defense, you've got to rush the passer in this division, and I think people obviously are finding out why they took Mario Williams first overall.''

    The gap between Indianapolis and the rest of the division has narrowed, and it could stay that way for a while, because in something of an aberration for the NFL, the AFC South doesn't seem to feature a team or teams on the obvious descent while others are on the rise.

    The Colts' Super Bowl window may not stay open indefinitely, but Indy has done a superb job of stock-piling depth for the eventual replacement of starters lost to free agency (Joseph Addai for EdgerrinJames for instance) and it's not headed for a stint in salary cap jail. The Texans and Titans are clearly on their way up, and Jacksonville has been a solid .500 or better club since coach JackDelRio's second season in 2004. Built around their strong defense and running game, the Jaguars are trying to take the next step offensively with the switch to Garrard.

    "The first thing you've got to think about with the AFC South is that the world champions are in our division,'' Smith said. "So if you're going to compete in your division, you've got to step up and compete with them. The Colts set the bar, and everybody's chasing them, not only in our division but throughout the whole league. But everybody's improved. There are four tough teams to contend with in this division.''
    Last edited by McClintic Sphere; 09-28-2007, 06:43 PM.

  • #2
    Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

    Houston showed today that their first 2 games were flukes, making (EDIT) Joey Harrington (/EDIT) look like Dan Marino.

    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-01-2007, 04:59 PM.
    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


    • #3
      Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

      Pennington is still with the Jets, so I assume you mean Joey Harrington?
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

        I don't think Houston is a fluke at all, I just think injuries are finally catching up to them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

          Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
          I don't think Houston is a fluke at all, I just think injuries are finally catching up to them.
          Many injuries to list (starting RB, C, LT, FS, SS, etc.), but the biggest one is:

          Andre Johnson healthy = 2-0

          Andre Johnson injured = 0-2

          Hard for a young team learning how to win consistently to do so without their best player, and without his backup, and without that guys back up.

          No excuses though. You still have to suit up who you got and go get a W.





          Joey Harrington is just too good.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

            Hey, I didn't get to see the game, Dannyboy. Did Joey Harrington really look good? Any Falcon's scouting you could give would be appreciated since we play them on Thanksgiving Day.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

              Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
              Hey, I didn't get to see the game, Dannyboy. Did Joey Harrington really look good? Any Falcon's scouting you could give would be appreciated since we play them on Thanksgiving Day.
              1) Tell DeAngelo Hall he's a ninny.

              2) Watch him implode.

              3) Win game.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: SI.com:The South has Risen

                Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
                Hey, I didn't get to see the game, Dannyboy. Did Joey Harrington really look good? Any Falcon's scouting you could give would be appreciated since we play them on Thanksgiving Day.
                Yeah he did really look good, but really good he is not.

                The Texans only have one DB on the roster that would start for another team. Combine that with limited pressure on the QB, due mostly to suspect playcalling by the DC, and you get the good looking Harrington. I also think the Atl coach is starting to figure out what his QB does well and gameplanning accordingly (lots of short quick passes so he can't hold the ball and get sacked, while occasionally going deep to the outside and rarely throwing over the middle).

                Texans were sloppy, and the Falcons were hungry for a W. Schaub, Demeco, and Amobi were the only guys I saw that played well from start to finish. Ron Dayne was Ron Dayne, which is not a good thing. I wasn't able to see that win over the Colts last year, so I still don't know how he ran for so many yards.

                I really don't see how the Falcons can compete with the Colts though.

                And if Steve Smith could make D Hall lose control, how will he possibly maintain composure after the verbal barrage that will be unleashed on him by Marvin Harrison...

                Comment

                Working...
                X