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

  • #16
    Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

    Compared to 1984-1999? Sure, they get an A+.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

      I would say, as of right now, a B+. If they win the Super Bowl again this season? A. If they go 19-0? A+.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

        I agree with Shade.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
            C?!?!?

            An A, easily. Multiple SBs would make it an A+ (which may happen this year.) Do you have any idea how many NFL fans would kill for their team to have this kind of a decade?
            I do because I live in Cincinnati.

            Compare the the Colts to the Bengals, Chiefs, Lions, or even the so-called "America's Team" Dallas Cowboys (all teams that haven't won a playoff game this decade) for a minute and you see how superior a team the Colts have been this decade.

            The Colts get an A- on my report card.

            The Steelers get an A- and the Patriots get an A (this might've been an A+ if it wasn't for the whole Spygate debacle).

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              So, besides the Pats, Steelers and Colts, rank the other Super Bowl champions of the decade then. Ravens? Buccaneers? Giants? Surely, with the fortunes of those teams for the ENTIRE decade, they would obviously be D's by your lofty standards since they only got one SB and not even close to the amount of other accolades the Colts have racked up right?

              The problem you're not seeing here is that everyone IS factoring in the ENTIRE decade. They are just putting more weight on the Colts' spectacular regular season accomplishments than you are. If you want to act like those accomplishments are trash that's up to you, and while I don't agree I do respect that that's the way you feel. But you shouldn't try to make people feel like they are wrong for thinking the way they do about the Colts. It's an OPINION. If you don't want an opinion, don't ask for it.
              Last edited by travmil; 12-23-2009, 12:50 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Okay, here's the thing. A C is average. Since there are 32 teams in the league, about one in three teams should win a super bowl in a given decade. This means that, even judging only by postseason success, the Colts almost have to be graded above average. When you factor in regular season wins I find it difficult to grade the Colts below an A.
                That'll do.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                  Pig, I chuckle a bit every time I see your "UP, UP, and away" signature. It's one of those thing I wish I had thought of.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                    Also, this is something that you really should wait until this decade is actually over. The Colts are better than they've ever been this decade and have a good chance to win a SB this season. That would have a major effect on how they're graded this decade, right?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                      B-

                      Should have at least 3 Lombardi trophies by now.
                      Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        This makes absolutely no sense. Every year 1 team wins the Super Bowl. That means 31 teams don't. So you're penalizing them for doing what the odds (and reality) would predict will happen most seasons? At most in a decade only 10 different teams can win a SB. That means at least 22 teams are going away empty handed. With repeat winners I think the total of different SB winners this decade will be what? 7? That leaves 25 teams on the outside looking in.

                        This doesn't even mention the records (individual and team) that have been broken this decade by the Colts, or breaking barriers with the first black NFL champion head coach. That shouldn't even matter really, because by even your convoluted perception that only playoff success matters the single Super Bowl win puts them in the top 20% of the league alone.

                        And if the top quarter of the league is getting C's .... I guess we're handing out 20 different grades D's and F's according to your cracked out scale of grading. Apparently we'll give out a single A, a single B and everyone else is stuck at C, D, F.

                        Hence, why the C is humorous to me. Nobody could possibly be .... off .... enough to truly believe that. Even more so after hearing the logic that didn't even support such an idea. I'm sure if I went into each teams "playoff successes" for the decade, I'd find 28 teams or so with fewer playoff victories this decade. If I had to guess the Patriots and Steelers would be the only 2 I'd expect it from.

                        This dudes as good as any comedian.

                        -- Steve --

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                          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?


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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?
                            No... the 'penalizing' is coming from a lack of playoff success. When you have a team with a special player, and extended regular season success, a series of one and done's in the playoffs drags down your overall score (unless you don't want to use the playoffs at all in the grading). Personally, I think playoff success should count a little more than regular season success (if anything).

                            Also, giving the Colts an "A" puts them with teams with multiple SB wins and playoff success. That doesn't seem fair to those teams. Shouldn't they grade higher than the Colts? I don't believe 'everybody' can get an "A".

                            But I don't think the Colts deserve a "C" either. Their lone SB appearance (and win) as well as excellent regular season record this decade puts them into the upper echelons. Regular seasons alone = A.... Add in playoffs and I have to drop them into the B range. Factor in a SB win and you have A- to B+ range.

                            An A+ should be an almost unattainable score.

                            That is my thought process on the subject.
                            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


                            • #29
                              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?
                              No, we're knocking them for losing home playoff games.

                              What's the big difference between the Belichick-era Pats and the Dungy-era Colts aside from the number of rings? The Belichick era Pats have NEVER lost a home playoff game and they have NEVER been eliminated in their first playoff game.

                              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.

                              I agree with Bball that giving us the same grade as the Pats/Steelers isn't really fair to them.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-23-2009, 09:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Grade the Colts for the last decade

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                No... the 'penalizing' is coming from a lack of playoff success. When you have a team with a special player, and extended regular season success, a series of one and done's in the playoffs drags down your overall score (unless you don't want to use the playoffs at all in the grading). Personally, I think playoff success should count a little more than regular season success (if anything).

                                Also, giving the Colts an "A" puts them with teams with multiple SB wins and playoff success. That doesn't seem fair to those teams. Shouldn't they grade higher than the Colts? I don't believe 'everybody' can get an "A".

                                But I don't think the Colts deserve a "C" either. Their lone SB appearance (and win) as well as excellent regular season record this decade puts them into the upper echelons. Regular seasons alone = A.... Add in playoffs and I have to drop them into the B range. Factor in a SB win and you have A- to B+ range.

                                An A+ should be an almost unattainable score.

                                That is my thought process on the subject.
                                Not everybody is getting an A, I only gave three teams out of thirty an A. 10%. Not a ridiculous percentage IMO. Certainly, you take some away from the Colts for the playoff failures, and maybe you argue that the Pats and the Steelers get an A+, but we're talking a Super Bowl victory. The MOST wins in a decade, arguably the greatest player of that decade, record breaking performances, at least three ESPN classic style comebacks (Tampa Bay Monday night game, New England AFC Champ game, and the New England game this season), countless other hall of fame caliber players coming through the franchise.

                                Look I'm as much as anyone to sit in the present and pick out the imperfections in the Colts, and yes I believe they should have won at least two super bowls, but honestly when you really start looking back over the past ten years how can you not become sentimental about a team, that won as a team, they lost as a team, through it all they made me PROUD to be a Colts fan, and they still picked up a championship along the way. It's hard for me not to give them an A when I really start to view everything like that.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X