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

Ravens @ Colts

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

  • #31
    Re: Ravens @ Colts

    Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
    I really hope Peyton wins so all you on here that worship him can actually have some validity that he is better than Brady.
    Yes, because the most ever MVPs in a career doesn't give that to him.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Ravens @ Colts

      Manning is better than Brady right now (obviously). If he wins another Super Bowl this year, the gap will be pretty big.

      I was impressed with how Brady came back and played 16 games after that brutal injury last year. I think he will play better next year.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-11-2010, 03:04 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Ravens @ Colts

        Why is anyone even debating Brady vs Manning right now? Hell according to the people that think Brady is better, he won Super Bowls all by himself. Those other 21 starters and special teams are just for show and it doesn't matter that the Pats have had a better defense up until this year for the most part. That proves Brady is better, right there.

        So the real debate should be if Brady is better than Matt Cassel, I mean they won more games with Cassel last year, right?

        *If you didn't notice, I didn't feel like making the whole post green*

        -- Steve --

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Ravens @ Colts

          I want to read that article from the 2006 playoffs, where some Baltimore hack wrote something to the e/affect of "Peyton wants everyone to be in credit card debt". Anyone know of a copy?
          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


          • #35
            Re: Ravens @ Colts

            I think Manning will throw 1-2 INTs. He just seems to do that, and defenses play better in the playoffs. The key is that our defense has been able to play really well this year after TOs. If they continue that, we should be ok.
            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Ravens @ Colts

              Baltimore is 0-7 against Indy. After Saturday, they'll be 0-8.

              Ray Lewis, Suggs, and Reed are great but they don't ever rattle Peyton like they do other QBs. Peyton will still burn their secondary with long passes and this year, all our main defensive starters will be healthy for this game which is bad news for Flacco.

              I don't expect it to be close and I don't think a 4th quarter come from behind victory will be necessary.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Ravens @ Colts

                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post

                And they've been doing the scoreboard thing since 1984 with the Colts. Again - not new and last time I looked, the game is here in Indy. Maybe the Colts will put BALT on the scoreboard and really **** them off.
                I think it'd be funnier if they put NON-Colts or NOT the Colts in place of the Ravens.

                example:

                Colts - 27
                Not the Colts - 17
                Last edited by Merz; 01-12-2010, 05:37 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Ravens @ Colts

                  Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                  This will be closer than you think
                  i hope you are wrong but, i fear you will be correct.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Ravens @ Colts

                    I just hope that Lucas Oil has provided large quantities of lubricants to our guys during this break. We absolutely cannot afford to be rusty, and I still fear that rust is nearly inevitable at this point.

                    Against a team that plays defense, and can run the ball well, our level of execution will have to be better than it has been for most of the season, especially with Baltimore getting some additional confidence by beating NE the way they actually should have with Brady hurt and Welker out. Baltimore is still in game shape, is hungry, and have not let up.

                    If the Colts are able to pull this one out likely after yet another late game comeback, they likely have what it takes to beat San Diego. So, for me, this game is what determines if they can get to the Superbowl, and possibly will indicate whether they have what it takes to beat Favre (most likely) or NO.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Ravens @ Colts

                      I know the article you are talking about Natson....I wish I could find that somewhere. Beating Baltimore that year in the playoffs made it so much sweeter after reading that article before game time. That truly pissed me off...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Ravens @ Colts

                        If the Colts don't make it to the Super Bowl this year, they will have a losing record in the playoffs for the same decade in which they were the winningest regular season team of all time.

                        That would be a very odd piece of trivia.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Ravens @ Colts

                          I am Colts fan.

                          I am not a homer.

                          I think Polian should stick to drafting skill positions not line men in the first few rounds. Ugoh and Pollick are not good.

                          I think Peyton has to blow up in the playoffs ie Kurt Warner last game for him to get the choke label off his back. In 2006 our team won 4 playoff games Manning threw more INTs than TD's in those games. Yes he has 4 MVP but only one ring. Manning would rather have 3 rings than four MVP's.

                          I am worried about picking up the blitz and stopping Ray Rice we do that we win the game. I hope Melvin Bullett has a pick 6 so he gets the credit he deserves that guy has made me say Bob Who to Bob Sanders!!!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Ravens @ Colts

                            I also think we have lost a lot of "home field" advantage with the stadium change.


                            I have heard zero false reports of fake crowd noise being pumped in the Luc. The last news report was on Feces in the food.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Ravens @ Colts

                              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                              I am worried about picking up the blitz...
                              Sometimes you make a comment that makes me honestly question whether you've ever even watched a Colts game. The Colts are the BEST IN THE LEAGUE at picking up the blitz and have been for years. YEARS! Other teams know that you don't blitz on Peyton because he sees it, audibles at the line, and makes you pay. He has a history of even being able to do this against Baltimore who is famous for not showing blitz until just before the snap. In fact, I sincerely hope with all my heart that Baltimore is stupid enough to make blitzing a big part of their defensive gameplan. If they do, I predict 300 yards and 3 TD's for Peyton and some Curtis Painter time in the 4th quarter. That's how stupid it would be for them to put in a heavy blitz package.

                              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                              I also think we have lost a lot of "home field" advantage with the stadium change.
                              Two seasons at The Luke. Combined record? 13-3, one of those was a throwaway, and the other two were in Peyton's first three games after coming back from knee surgery. That's tied for the best home record in the league over those two seasons. Yeah, they need to do something about losing that homefield advantage.
                              Last edited by travmil; 01-12-2010, 11:52 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Ravens @ Colts

                                I found it, I think... twss


                                Patronizing Peyton Manning by Dan Rodricks

                                At first, I thought the Peyton Manning commercials for Mastercard were funny, but the more I see them the more Manning comes across as a patronizing put-down artist, making fun of -- not championing -- the working stiffs of America who earn a tiny fraction of what he makes for throwing footballs and acting as pitchman for a credit card company. The waitress who drops a tray of food, the stock boy in a supermarket, the deli man slicing meat, moving men and fast-food workers -- all these modest wage-earners are the recipients of Manning's phony high-fives and obssessive antics. This isn't exactly fanfare for the common man; you can't forget that the wholesome Indianapolis quarterback, the one cheering on the below-minimum-wage waitress in the Mastercard commercials, makes millions of dollars a year from the Colts. He's reportedly the highest-paid player in NFL history, getting $99 million for seven years with a $34.5 million signing bonus, and an extra $19 million in incentives. According to Sports Illustrated, Manning gets another $11 million a year from endorsements. He'll never have to worry about waiting tables or moving furniture.

                                And never mind the whole issue of credit card debt -- whether Manning should be encouraging use of plastic for the same socieconomic class he "celebrates" in these commercials. Since 1989 credit card debt has tripled in the U.S. to more than $700 billion, and studies show that middle- and low-income households carry an average of $9,000. Among the 20-somethings, who are Manning's biggest admirers, debt (college loans and credit cards) is a particularly acute problem. "The [credit card] industry discovered that the most profitable consumers were the least responsible consumers—college students, people who'd declared bankruptcy, housewives [and] people who were consuming beyond their means," Newsweek quoted James Scurlock, the 30-something director of "Maxed Out," a documentary on consumer debt. "People who would pay anything for credit—any fee or any interest rate because they needed more credit. Before, credit was rationed based on whether you could pay it back, based on your reputation, based on your character to some degree. It's just not that way anymore, and that's a huge change."

                                Do you think Peyton Manning has a clue about this?

                                And I wonder how many of the workers depicted in these commercials have health insurance benefits from their employers. According to Investor's Business Daily, the cost of uncompensated care in the U.S. reached $28.8 billion in 2005. That was up from $26.9 billion the prior year. The estimate on uninsured Americans ranges from 46 million to 48 million these days.

                                So, pardon me for no longer laughing at Peyton Manning's Everyman-Everyfan commercials. The "joke" has worn thin now, but I wonder if Manning has the slightest clue that some of his fans, including this one, might see it that way.


                                http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a
                                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

                                Working...
                                X