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

What could have been.

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

  • #16
    Re: What could have been.

    Bill Polian has won the NFL Executive Award 5times in his career.

    I'll keep it short. I find listing him in the same paragraph as the Jets as completely insulting towards one of the best GMs in the history of the game.

    My God man, he built a Buffalo Bills team that went to the SB four straight years. His legacy isn't built around which team selected Peyton Manning.

    You should really read up on what he did in Buffalo, because it was nothing short of amazing.

    Then he took an expansion team to the SB in their SECOND YEAR.

    Not to mention the Colts have the longest streak in history with atleast 12 wins a season.

    This discussion is a complete insult.
    Last edited by Since86; 06-23-2009, 12:34 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What could have been.

      And thats why I put IMO. The discussion was simply that a discussion. IF you find it insulting then you can refrain from reading anything I write. I personally don't care.

      Now in context to my post I was mainly referring to the Colts "Bill Polian" era. The Bills I could care less about because I am a colts fan now. I believe Bill Polian is talented and has proved himself over his entire career.

      With that said I don't think the Colts got to where they are without some luck and if more teams had a Peyton I could see them right there with us. I don't think one superbowl is all that impressive and I find a lot of people both nationally and locally agreeing that the Colts are underperforming among the elite teams of the NFL. Again IMO.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What could have been.

        Maybe the Colts should have used Bellichick's plan and illegally videotaped their opponents. Or maybe used Rodney Harrison's off field dietary supplementation guidelines (read that as take more steriods).

        Bill Polian built a team that has a chance every single year. Even more so than the Patriots. Obviously the Pats have won more SB but inbetween their wins, their team fell off. You have to make the playoffs in order to win in the playoffs.

        I've read opinions that it's Peyton Mannings fault they didn't win in Foxboro. I've read opinions that Tony Dungy always chokes. Now Bill Polian is the one that's not getting it done.

        Geesh. Next up it will be the Blue Crew wasn't loud enough.

        It's the GM's job to get players together than have the potential to win it all. Bill Polian has done that, and there is no denying it. The next time he misses a tackle, throws an interception, or calls the wrong play will be the first time.

        Any franchise would kill to have him calling the shots for their organizations. He is, without a doubt, one of the best if not THE best GM's in the league. Yes, it is an insult to him to place him in the same category as the lowly Jets.

        Atleast put him in the same category as the Pats and Steelers. Not a team that freaking puts their hopes and dreams on the back of a washed up Brett Farve.

        EDIT: I understand it's your personal opinion, but come on, the Jets?
        Last edited by Since86; 06-23-2009, 04:48 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What could have been.

          86, I agree 99% with your post.

          I think 'roid use in the league is a pretty common thing. Can't believe that the Colts are 100% devoid of a player or 3 (at least) that hasn't used SOMETHING.

          Other than that though - you're spot on.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What could have been.

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            I don't think one superbowl is all that impressive and I find a lot of people both nationally and locally agreeing that the Colts are underperforming among the elite teams of the NFL. Again IMO.
            But you still have to ask whether they are an elite football team or an elite passing offense?
            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


            • #21
              Re: What could have been.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post

              EDIT: I understand it's your personal opinion, but come on, the Jets?
              Yes with the Jets and here is why. If you followed my argument with Adam1987 I honestly think if the Jets had Manning they would have been much more succesefull (winning the AFC/superbowl). Likewise if the colts didn’t have Manning but a lesser qb then the colts are mediocre much like the jets. I am not saying Polian isn’t good but if he came one year after or before 1998 then who knows if he is thought of as the franchise savior of the colts. Certianly Polian is good at what he does but so are many GMS around the league. GMs will build around the teams strengths and minimize their weaknesses but Polian to me owes a lot of his success to Manning.
              Just a quick analysis of the Jets and Colts. The difference between the 2 in 2006 is the qb. Chad P. qb rating was 20 points lower.
              Defense
              2005

              20





              New York Jets






              21






              Indianapolis Colts







              2006
              20






              New York Jets






              21






              Indianapolis Colts







              2006
              Offense Total yards
              3






              Indianapolis Colts








              25






              New York Jets








              Rushing yds
              18






              Indianapolis Colts








              20






              New York Jets








              By the way I do believe in blaming the guy who helps select the head coach and players to which he will win or lose with. I mean the worker is only as good as his tools right.

              Or should I blame the position coach for not teaching a 260 lb DT to run through a gap between two 305 lb offensive lineman. This all because we had to have 2 tightends and 3 centers/guards. A total of 2 defensive players and 7 offensive players drafted.

              But I know what you are going to say. How was Bill Polian suppose to know that Ed Johnson was going to smoke pot in his car? I guess he should of known somewhere between his past and his history. Relying on one DT that can stop the run is stupid. Relying on one DT with a rap sheet is even more stupid.

              Bill Polian is good but lets not act like he hasn't made some really big mistakes which have kept the colts from winning in the playoffs.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 06-24-2009, 04:31 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What could have been.

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                But you still have to ask whether they are an elite football team or an elite passing offense?
                I get your point. Certianly in the past they have been both an elite offense and defense. ITs just they haven't been consistent with the defense which is also hard if majority of the money has been dedicated to the offense.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What could have been.

                  From the outside, I've never thought of the Colts as anything better than an above-average defense. Certainly not great, let alone elite. And many times not even above-average. Yes, I know they were pretty good at defending the "panic" - Oh my God, we're down three scores... pass!! pass!! pass!! And some of the defensive stats were good. But if they couldn't get ahead by two scores or if the opposing coach followed Cowher's advise and stayed committed to the running game, the Colts defense looked pretty ordinary.

                  which is also hard if majority of the money has been dedicated to the offense.
                  Ding!! Ding!! That is my entire point. They haven't invested in being an elite team, just an elite passing offense. The Greatest Show on Turf is the relevant comparison, not the Giants, Steelers, or Patriots.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: What could have been.

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    From the outside, I've never thought of the Colts as anything better than an above-average defense. Certainly not great, let alone elite. And many times not even above-average. Yes, I know they were pretty good at defending the "panic" - Oh my God, we're down three scores... pass!! pass!! pass!! And some of the defensive stats were good. But if they couldn't get ahead by two scores or if the opposing coach followed Cowher's advise and stayed committed to the running game, the Colts defense looked pretty ordinary.



                    Ding!! Ding!! That is my entire point. They haven't invested in being an elite team, just an elite passing offense. The Greatest Show on Turf is the relevant comparison, not the Giants, Steelers, or Patriots.
                    Well to be fair I think anytime you are rated in the top 3 you should be considered right up there with the elite defenses. I know 2008 was abysmal but in 2007 they were top 3. You are right that has a lot to do with passing defense but that can be just as important to stopping the run.

                    My point is that you have to do both well and consistently. The colts haven't done that and should not be considered with the upper tier teams of the league. I certianly do blame Polian for this.

                    DO I think the colts are just a elite passing offense? No. In 2006 they average 4.0 yards per carry. That same year the steelers averaged 4.2 and the Pats averaged 3.9.

                    My point is that the colts are not consistent becuase they haven't been managed as well as the Pats, Steelers, Giants etc... I will just highlight a few things that bugg me about the team. The offensive lineman have a hard time run blocking but we pay some of them top dollar. The colts take risk in FA which could be address in the draft ala Booger/Simon. They refuse to address skill positions in FA/trades which are harder to draft ala WR (no not TO) . THey pay top dollar for people that are either hurt a lot or only good at one thing (Bob and Freeny).
                    Last edited by Gamble1; 06-25-2009, 11:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What could have been.

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      DO I think the colts are just a elite passing offense? No. In 2006 they average 4.0 yards per carry. That same year the steelers averaged 4.2 and the Pats averaged 3.9.
                      That's an odd choice. The Steelers were 11th in ypc, the Colts were tied for 16th, and the Patriots were in big tie from 18-23. That's not elite, that's average.

                      Not to mention, the Colts were 18th in rushing attempts (Patriots 6, Steelers 14). And that was the Steelers' first season without Bettis, contributing to the abnormally low stats in the running game as well.

                      Post-Bettis, with Small Willie Parker, I wouldn't call the Steelers an elite running team either. Our offense is closer to balanced (52% pass, 48% run in 2008), and its our defense that is setting us apart. I'm hoping Mendenhall can put some power back into our running game this season. We need a better running game if we are going to successfully defend our Super Bowl. Our inability to put the game away with ball-controll football allowed the Cardinals to make a nice rally.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: What could have been.

                        Chicago J, I think you will be hard pressed to find a team that can do all phases of the game at an elite level. I do however believe the colts can be an elite well rounded offense and defense. The running game will not be as good as the passing as long as we invest in pass blocking linemen. I don't think the colts in order to function well (superbowl) need to be elite at running, they just need to be functional (good).

                        I was not trying to call the Colts elite at running in 2007. I was trying to get across that the colts can be more rounded as an offense and more importantly shouldn't be seen as a one dimensional football team as you implied.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What could have been.

                          You can't hinge an argument on one player like that.

                          Polian used different tatics to develop his teams. That's why I talked about what he did prior to coming to Indy. With or without Peyton, he would have built a very successful team. He's proven he can do it. He took an expansion team to the SB in two years.

                          Yes, Peyton made the building process a whole lot easier, that's a given. But going on his track record, he would have built a contender with or without Peyton Manning.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What could have been.

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            You can't hinge an argument on one player like that.

                            Polian used different tatics to develop his teams. That's why I talked about what he did prior to coming to Indy. With or without Peyton, he would have built a very successful team. He's proven he can do it. He took an expansion team to the SB in two years.

                            Yes, Peyton made the building process a whole lot easier, that's a given. But going on his track record, he would have built a contender with or without Peyton Manning.

                            Agreed.

                            One player doesn't guarantee anything. Just look at the Dolphins with Dan Marino. Marino is widely considered to be a top 5 QB of all time, but the Dolphins had some pretty mediocre to downright bad years during the prime of his career.

                            From 86-89-years that were smack dab in Marino's prime-they went 30-33. He threw 44 touchdowns in 1986, but the team still went a mediocre 8-8. All of those mediocre seasons show that that the Dolphins had some quetionable management that couldn't field a great team around Marino.

                            http://www.pro-football-reference.co...M/MariDa00.htm

                            This would have happened to the Colts as well if we didn't have someone like Polian calling the shots. Manning makes things easier, but the Dolphins with Marino show us that one great quarterback doesn't guarantee anything. You have to put great pieces around him, and that's what Polian has done.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: What could have been.

                              Didn't Pollian build the Bills around Jim Kelley? Pretty similar strategy, I think. Kelley is arguably a top-10 alltime QB. He can build around a franchise/ HoF QB. And we've seen a lot of GMs that flunked that particular test.

                              I think you're vastly underrating Marino, BTW, by calling him "top-five".
                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: What could have been.

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                Didn't Pollian build the Bills around Jim Kelley? Pretty similar strategy, I think. Kelley is arguably a top-10 alltime QB. He can build around a franchise/ HoF QB. And we've seen a lot of GMs that flunked that particular test.

                                I think you're vastly underrating Marino, BTW, by calling him "top-five".

                                OK, call him the greatest ever if you want. It only strengthens my point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X