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

Grade the Colts for the last decade

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

  • #31
    Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

    I mean if you're giving the Colts a C or even a B, then what do you give the Pacers F-, F--? I mean just look at what we've done this decade and there are 27 other teams that would trade places with us in a heartbeat. 90% of the league would trade their decade for the Colts' decade. THat's pretty incredible.


    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

      Most wins in a decade ever.

      12 wins a season for 6 (7 ? - I lost count) years in a row. 1st time ever.

      Playoff losses - sure. Each year there are 15 teams that have a playoff loss.

      And the decade isn't quite over yet, so maybe some judgment should be saved until this season is over. It could wind up being another of those first time ever things again.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

        Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
        Manning is a once in a lifetime player. I want to max-out his tenure here, and I don't think that has quite been done yet.
        So was Elway, and he didn't get one until he was nearly in a wheelchair. So was Marino .....

        Regardless of the media (and others) idea that the only player that matters on an NFL team is QB, the fact is this is a team sport. TEAM. Just having the best QB doesn't mean you're always going to win the Super Bowl. I think some peoples expectations are warped by this idea.

        -- Steve --

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

          Really the only damning thing is the 1st round losses. Other than that, the only thing missing is more Super Bowl's. It's been an outstanding body of work this decade. Or pretty damn close.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
            I feel you have to look @ the whole decade and yes if it was the regular sesaon I would give them an A+ but to have a season when you get demolished in the playoffs (San Diego two years ago) and multiple seasons of zero wins in the playoffs they drop to a C. Skip Bayless gave them a C-. Skip would lay Tom Brady in a heart beat though.
            Did you really just defend an opinion by citing Skip Bayless?
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

              As a fan of another team I will offer my opinion.

              The Colts have won more games than any other team this decade. They have won a super bowl, have been competitive the entire decade, have broken numerous records, have the greatest QB ever (well by the time he retires he will be), and can possibly do something this year even the mighty patriots could not do two years ago.

              As of right now I say the Colts get an A-. I'd say the Patriots get the A+ as they have been consistent and won 3 SB's and gone to another. So with the Patriots setting the bar here, I judge the rest of the league off of that. The Colts have been as consistent if not more consistent than the Pats, just don't have as many Super Bowls.

              Now if the Colts were to go undefeated and win the SB or even just win the SB, I would probably move them up to an A+. Loss in the SB, A, and if they lose before the SB they stay at an A-.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                As a fan of another team I will offer my opinion.

                The Colts have won more games than any other team this decade. They have won a super bowl, have been competitive the entire decade, have broken numerous records, have the greatest QB ever (well by the time he retires he will be), and can possibly do something this year even the mighty patriots could not do two years ago.

                As of right now I say the Colts get an A-. I'd say the Patriots get the A+ as they have been consistent and won 3 SB's and gone to another. So with the Patriots setting the bar here, I judge the rest of the league off of that. The Colts have been as consistent if not more consistent than the Pats, just don't have as many Super Bowls.

                Now if the Colts were to go undefeated and win the SB or even just win the SB, I would probably move them up to an A+. Loss in the SB, A, and if they lose before the SB they stay at an A-.

                This is the same basic thought process I used. The difference being that I said an A+ was almost unattainable in my grading system. I count playoff success to mean as much or more than regular season success and therefore I'd consider the Pats setting the bar overall. So whatever score I'd give them the Colts would have to be under it (as of now... the decade isn't over).

                I explained I would be looking at an A- or B+ for the Colts and in my thinking that is pretty darned good. They would be almost alone in that area the way I am grading it. ...In the top 3 certainly....
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                  Originally posted by Indy View Post
                  We're so freaking spoiled that we're knocking them for not having ENOUGH Super Bowl trophies. Do you guys have any idea how hard it is to win a Super Bowl?
                  It's just one of those things I laugh about sometimes, how some can be so fickle about the Colts.

                  Before XLI... "Please just win one, I'll sell my soul for a SB win."
                  After XLI... "Eh, they won just won one. I won't be content until we get three or four."

                  Before XLI... "This team isn't good enough to win, too one-dimensional."
                  After XLI... "This team should have won three or four, we were a great team."

                  After the post XLI playoffs losses, it was... "I don't care about stats, records, or anything; I just want to win another Super Bowl."
                  Now it's... "We should have gone for 19-0"
                  Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                  I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                    Originally posted by Natston View Post
                    It's just one of those things I laugh about sometimes, how some can be so fickle about the Colts.

                    Before XLI... "Please just win one, I'll sell my soul for a SB win."
                    After XLI... "Eh, they won just won one. I won't be content until we get three or four."

                    Before XLI... "This team isn't good enough to win, too one-dimensional."
                    After XLI... "This team should have won three or four, we were a great team."

                    After the post XLI playoffs losses, it was... "I don't care about stats, records, or anything; I just want to win another Super Bowl."
                    Now it's... "We should have gone for 19-0"
                    Exactly, look, when Caldwell/Polian made the final call to pull the starters I was shouting and yelling, and was extremley pissed we did that, but now as I have calmed down off of my knee-jerk reaction I have realized that even though I really, really wanted 19-0, it really is a big distraction that we didn't need and 16-0 really means nothing if we don't win the Super Bowl.

                    Look, the object of the season is to compete for a Super Bowl, right? Well, we are, and we haven't been eliminated yet, have we? 19-0 would have been awesome, but look at the Patriots of 2007? Look at the last time we were 13-0, I remember people saying how when we lost in the first round that year, "Screw being undefeated, just bring us a damn trophy." The Patriots almost had 19-0, but went 18-1 and now that amazing 16-0 season means nothing. It's cool, but they didn't bring home the Lombardi trophy and don't tell me that the majority would be OK if we lost in the Super Bowl, and at least we went for it.

                    We'd probably all be pissed and second guessing playing starters in Buffalo or *****ing about the usual one and done or whatever, and not saying, "Oh well, at least we tried to go undefeated, I'm not upset at all." I know I wouldn't give a rat's *** about a 16-0 season if we lost in the playoffs at some point. In the end it's about winning those 3-4 games in the playoffs, it's about going undefeated in the postseason once you clinch the postseason and all that you can, IMO.

                    Fire Caldwell? Ummmm, no. If anything he is taking orders from Mr. Polian, and I'd probably have done the same thing even if I wanted to go for a 19-0 season, if my boss was lobbying me to rest them or take them out. But I guess some people would take that as weakness in the coach, and hell, for all we know it could have been Jim's decision. We probably will never know this until years later. I think players lobbied to play for the rest of the year, and Jim was able to get by the Jacksonville game, then Polian stepped in and said, we're gonna do blablabla and rest after whatever. That's just something that has crossed my mind, and something I think is possible. I'm very curious to know.

                    If we win the Super Bowl, there is always going to be that what if and the Super Bowl won't mean as much because we didn't go 19-0 and could have possibly? Are you kidding me? If we win the Super Bowl, then we just won the ******* Super Bowl, our second one in what 4 years at that, and you are acting way too spoiled to be a little upset that we didn't win every single game. There shouldn't be a single person that feels that way.

                    Look, I wanted 19-0, I understand what it could have meant, but we're not going 19-0, sadly. I'm almost already over being upset about it.

                    We still have games to play. A home Divisional playoff game, and possibly a home AFC Championship game and a good shot at the Super Bowl, let's be happy one of our teams has clinched playoffs, is contending for a Super Bowl, has home field advantage, and a championship under its belt already.

                    Also, if we go one and done again this year, then I do agree, some kind of change needs to be made, but that has a been a recurring thing, and shouldn't just be based off of this year.

                    Again, not trying to force my opinion on people, if I come across as someone trying to do that, I am sorry.
                    Last edited by Lord Helmet; 12-28-2009, 06:25 AM.
                    Super Bowl XLI Champions
                    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                      Originally posted by Natston View Post

                      After the post XLI playoffs losses, it was... "I don't care about stats, records, or anything; I just want to win another Super Bowl."
                      Now it's... "We should have gone for 19-0"
                      Obviously no Colts fan would have ever listed 19-0 as something they wanted before the season. That would be an illogical goal as no one has ever gone 19-0 before.

                      But once we got to 14-0 and had the chance, you can better believe we wanted it. That's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Instead of hearing "72 Dolphins", we would be hearing "09 Colts" for a long time. 19-0 isn't a goal you ever has a fan, because it's nearly impossible to do, but once you are on it's doorstep you can better believe it's something you want.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                        With some debate here about how to grade the Colts for the decade a lot of the debate would be stifled if the Colts had -
                        A: Went 16-0 and matched their nemesis (Patriots) for an undefeated reg season
                        B: Went 19-0 and owned the record for an unbeaten season including playoffs/SB. Not only would've they have matched the Dolphins in being one of only two team to have done that but they would've had to have won more games to do it (putting them in a category by themselves).

                        You want to cement a legacy for a team? That would do it...

                        A SB win would get some of that back but it won't match the history books for an undefeated season. And of course there's no guarantee there's a SB in our immediate future. And we just pissed on our chance for at least putting a regular season together for the history books (let alone the whole enchilada).
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                          Six playoff one-and-dones in a decade is a lot to ignore, since many came as prohibitive favorites.

                          A+ in the regular season, A- in the regular season, A overall.

                          Another one and done this year, though, and I'd have to drop them a little more, B+ at best for the postseason.

                          Maybe that doesn't make much sense, dropping their grade for something happening 7 times rather than 6, but this year has seemed to be their year. The rest of the conference powers are badly flawed this year. The Patriots cleared the deck on defense, the Steelers can't run and have a porous D, even the Chargers seem one-dimensional and defensively-challenged.

                          This ought to be the year the Colts at least get back to the SB.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                            Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                            But once we got to 14-0 and had the chance, you can better believe we wanted it. That's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Instead of hearing "72 Dolphins", we would be hearing "09 Colts" for a long time. 19-0 isn't a goal you ever has a fan, because it's nearly impossible to do, but once you are on it's doorstep you can better believe it's something you want.
                            My point is that some wanted a SB at all costs (even making sure that they didn't get a bye), and now we should be pissed because the TPTB are focused on the playoffs and not a regular season record.
                            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              Man you guys are tough graders. Only two other teams were better than us this decade, Pats and Steelers. Then it's us and the distance between us and the fourth team is HUGE (probably the Eagles). I give the Pats, Steelers, and Colts As.

                              Yea but one has to take into account the fact that the Pats beat us all 3 times to get their SB and the Steelers also beat us to get theirs.. therefore I believe a solid B+

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X