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 Colts' Chances

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

  • #16
    Re: The Colts' Chances

    Fine. By your logic, we DOMINATED the Steelers in their own building since Marvin dropped two sure touchdowns. I mean since we are actually basing the outcome of games on things that DIDN'T HAPPEN and all I don't see the problem with that. As for the field postion, you don't know what will happen. Who's to say that the Colts don't get EVEN BETTER field position in any rematches they might encounter?

    I'm really tired of this game. Justify a loss however you feel it necessary and predict Steeler domination in any rematch.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Colts' Chances

      I'd rather the Steelers lose and not make the playoffs. Pretty please? They're the only team that I believe we'd struggle with.
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Colts' Chances

        Originally posted by travmil View Post
        Who's to say that the Colts don't get EVEN BETTER field position in any rematches they might encounter?
        They might. We gave NE the ball on the 14 last week, and we tried really hard to fumble the opening kickoff back to them inside the 20 just a couple plays before that.

        Is this a fair trade:

        Colts fans can quit the "What if" with the 1994 and 2005 playoff games, and I'll quit the "what if" with the 2005 and 2008 regular season games.

        Fair? Because if your fellow Colts fans are going to dish out the what-if game year after year then I think you collectively should able to take it when it comes back around.
        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


        • #19
          Re: The Colts' Chances

          This conversation reminds me of the mindset of a lot of Colts fans before the playoff game against the Chargers last year. In the regular season, so many things had to go wrong against the Colts for the Chargers to even squeak out a win at home - what chance did they have at the dome?

          Of course the Chargers won. When you have two relatively evenly-matched teams, every game plays out completely differently. This is especially so in football, where tiny things can change the outcome so easily, so playing the "Well, next time Peyton won't throw six interceptions and everything else will play out exactly the same, so we'll win" game doesn't usually work, for either side.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Colts' Chances

            Well, with reagrd to Pitt-NE on Sunday, I would say you can take away the muffed kickoff return by Slater (he was only in the game because Hobbs was on the sideline throwing up with the flu) and even the missed 27-yard chip-shot field goal and then you have a 13-13 game.

            At that point New England can continue to run the ball at 6.1 yards per carry (more than double what anyone else has achieved vs. the Steelers, I think) and not be forced to pass every down, and the sacks/fumbles and INTs that led directly to the last 20 point the Steelers scored don't happen.

            My point is not that the Steelers didn't deserve to win, but that what-ifs are crap. Game-changing plays can cause a snowball effect and radically move the course of the game. At halftime I thought the Pats were in good shape. Until the muffed KO return they were as much in control of the game as was Pittsburgh.

            final stats: 19 first downs each, yardage disparity 333-267; these don't reflect a "domination by more than the 33-10 score would indicate."

            5 turnovers will kill you.

            The special teams one caused a snowball effect that led to the rout.

            I for one would love to see a playoff rematch in Pittsburgh with Ty Warren and Adalius Thomas both back in the lineup and Randy Moss not dropping what were (for him) easy catches.

            but what-ifs on my part are equally worthless.

            A win is a win, a loss is a loss. 33-10 didn't help you more than 6-3 or 48-47.
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-03-2008, 01:23 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


            • #21
              Re: The Colts' Chances

              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
              final stats: 19 first downs each, yardage disparity 333-267; these don't reflect a "domination by more than the 33-10 score would indicate."
              You're right - I should have said "second half".

              At halftime I thought the Pats were in good shape.
              So did I. In fact, I was saying that if our defense can't create some points for us, that we were in trouble.

              I for one would love to see a playoff rematch in Pittsburgh with Ty Warren and Adalius Thomas both back in the lineup and Randy Moss not dropping what were (for him) easy catches.
              Bryant McFadden and Brett Kiesel will be back by then as well, so our defense should be better than its been the past few weeks. Bring it on. As for all of Nate Washington's drops, well, I hear he'll be available to the highest bidder in a few months.



              PS, Sorry Tom (and Moses), I didn't necessarily mean to bring you into my calculated "what-if" rampage. Just trying to make a point after all of these years that somehow still seems to be lost in people actually reading what follows the "what if" lead-in.
              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


              • #22
                Re: The Colts' Chances

                with regard to the Colt's chances, here is a really interesting website that does game simulations. It says the Colts have an 86% or 95% chance of making the playoffs, depending upon how you do the calculations.

                http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NFL.html

                Click on any team and it gives you the playoff odds, odds if they do go 4-0, 3-1, 2-2, etc.

                There are two ways the odds are calculated- one called 50/50 in which each game is considered a coin toss. In that scenario, the odds are 30.4% for the Patriots to make the playoffs, but a 97.7% chance if they go 4-0 from now on, and a respectable 72.9% chance if they go 3-1.

                The other way of calculation, called weighted (click at the top) takes into account home/away, strength of opponent, recent game trends, etc. and is probably more accurate. The Patriots are apparently badly hurt by the easy schedules of many of the teams they are in competition with for playoff spots. The overall odds drop to 18.7%, and "only" an 81.9% chance of making the playoffs even with a 4-0 finish.

                It makes you sick to compare the odds with top teams in awful divisions like Denver and Arizona.

                It's also revealing to see how much one loss can hurt- the Pats playoff odds dropped from 47% to 19% due to the Pittsburgh game alone.

                very interesting site-- has NBA data too.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-03-2008, 04:41 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


                • #23
                  Re: The Colts' Chances

                  Jay, I'm curious, did the Steelers dominate the Cowgirls or did Romo give it to them with the short field in the 4th quarter? Personally, I think Romo gave it away the same way Ben did against the Colts. Credit where it's due right?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Colts' Chances

                    I watched it - Cowboys dominated the 3rd quarter, Steelers the 4th. Romo didn't give 'em a short field, it was a pick-6.

                    Basically, whichever team had the wind won that quarter. Would have been an interesting coin toss - I think it might have bucked the usual thinking and a team would have chosen the end to defend rather than taking the ball.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Colts' Chances

                      I'm just trying to see if Jay thinks the Steelers D dominated or if Romo played bad. He thought Ben played bad in the Colts loss and wouldn't give our guys any credit for making the plays they had to to win the game. I'm just trying to see if he will look at his own guys with the same critical eye he sees the Colts with.
                      Last edited by travmil; 12-08-2008, 04:03 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Colts' Chances

                        Nice to see that even if we go 1-2 we have a 95 percent chance of getting in. Although if that happens, i worry about our ability to win in the playoffs.
                        Play Mafia!
                        Twitter

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Colts' Chances

                          What worries me most is the fact that we have already beaten Pittsburgh, New England, and Baltimore this year. It is very difficult to beat a team twice in the same year, especially when it's a very good team. We seem to own the Ravens, but I would not bet on us against the other two.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Colts' Chances

                            You don't ever seem to bet on the Colts anyways, so what's the difference?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Colts' Chances

                              I'm not worried about NE/Balt. as much as I am Pittsburgh. Of course, I think Pitt. is going to go to the SB the way their defense is playing right now.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X