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

Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

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

  • #46
    Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

    I think this team would be 8-8 with Peyton. I think their likely trajectory right now points to 1-15 or 0-16. Is there another player in the NFL worth 7-8 wins by himself?

    Last night would have never happened if they had Peyton. The team would not have completely bent over and taken it up the rear if he was under center and you know that. Yes, we need to fire Caldwell, but let's be real, this season has proven who is the most valuable player in the NFL, blame that on the way the team is constructed if you want, but it doesn't change the fact or impact of what Peyton has done for really the last 4-5 years.

    Here's the schedule so far with Peyton under center IMO...

    @Texans W/ Peyton Loss W/o Peyton Loss (Peyton would not have completely made up for the trouble we had defensively that day.)

    vs. Browns W/ Peyton win W/o Peyton Loss (Peyton most likely could have covered the 8 point difference in this game)

    vs. Pittsburgh W/ Peyton win W/o Peyton Loss (Steelers played like total crap, even my friends that are Steelers fans admit the Colts would have rolled them with Peyton)

    @Tampa Bay W/ Peyton win W/o Peyton Loss (Again, TD difference in a game we had a chance to win. Are you betting on Josh Freeman or Peyton?)

    vs. Kansas City W/Peyton win W/o Peyton Loss (Do I even really need to go over this one? so at this point we're already 4-1 if Peyton is playing)

    @Cincinatti w/Peyton win w/o Peyton Loss (This one is up for debate, but I'm willing to believe Peyton could have made up for the 10 point difference)

    @ New Orleans w/Peyton ? w/o Peyton loss (I honestly don't know what would have happened here with Peyton, it is likely still a loss, but it is probably not a 55 point butt whooping that it was. It is clear the players have given up, so at worse with Peyton right now I'd say we're 5-2 or at the very worst 4-3, either way, we're likely going to get to 8-8 and out pace your 6-10 prediction. Yes, the team is badly broken and needs a lot of work, but it's not unreasonable to say Peyton is worth 8 wins by himself IMO.)
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 10-24-2011, 01:34 PM.


    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

      ^Blah, just beaten.

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      Are you saying that with Peyton they would have won 63-62? Or avoided the INT/pick 6 and won 56-55?

      The team was 14-2 in year #1 under Caldwell, then 10-6 (with some miracles sprinkled in), and the linear progession shows they were headed for about 6-10 WITH MANNING.

      6-10 with Manning becomes 2-14 without Manning, and becomes 0-16 without Manning and without an organizational effort to even try to win.
      This team is almost identical to the team that peyton went 10-6 with last year except with more talent at offensive line (albeit, he hasn't played lately) and running back. I don't think there is anyway you can make that argument.

      Manning wins us the Pitt game in a blow out, Manning wins us the Buccs game, Manning wins the Browns, Kansas City, and Bengals games. Collins turns it over twice in the first quarter of the Houston game, Manning would not of fumbled two snaps.

      Football is a game of inches and small changes determining games. With Peyton they are at least 4-3, much more likely 5-2.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

        Originally posted by righteouscool View Post


        This team is almost identical to the team that peyton went 10-6 with last year except with more talent at offensive line (albeit, he hasn't played lately) and running back. I don't think there is anyway you can make that argument.
        I agree.

        THere are only 5 losses that I can see from the schedule with Peyton. The Pats, Houston, Falcons, Ravens, Saints and we could have won against the Falcons or the Pats.

        Lets face it Peyton makes this pig of a team look good during the regular season.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

          So Peyton plays special teams and defense?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

            Originally posted by Stryder View Post
            So Peyton plays special teams and defense?
            Yes, that's clearly the point.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              They are what their record says they are.
              And yet you're arguing that they're a 6-10 team with Peyton eventhough they've not had a record like that in how long?

              You should probably stick with your own advice.
              โ€œJust because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.โ€ ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                You watched a defense take the field 9 times, giving up 7 TDs and 2 field goals, and wonder what might have been if you had your offense back?

                I didn't watch the game, so maybe I am off base a little. Some guys on the defensive side of the ball would seem to need to take after the tin man and go looking for a heart. Or some guts. Or maybe some balls?
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  You watched a defense take the field 9 times, giving up 7 TDs and 2 field goals, and wonder what might have been if you had your offense back?

                  I didn't watch the game, so maybe I am off base a little. Some guys on the defensive side of the ball would seem to need to take after the tin man and go looking for a heart. Or some guts. Or maybe some balls?
                  Probably all true, but do think the defense plays so gutless if they knew they had Peyton on the other side of the ball? Let's be real...


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                    There's no doubt in my mind that Peyton being on the sidelines effects the defense. When you believe you have a chance to win, you play harder than when you think it's pointless. That's basic human nature.

                    If you want to argue whether or not it's acceptable, I'd probably on your side of the argument.

                    But simply put, this team has given up and quite frankly they haven't had much fight in them all year.

                    The mental approach is just as important as the phsyical one.
                    โ€œJust because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.โ€ ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                      Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                      So Peyton plays special teams and defense?
                      I love how everyone says these types of comments but all that matters is the scoreboard. IF Peyton would have played this year he would have had the most 4th quarter comeback wins in the history of the nfl. IIRC, I believe he is tied with Marino in that stat. (Makes you wonder why?)

                      Point is we know what Manning could do with this team last year in which they had an increbible amount of injuries to key players. I think its safe to say that with a healthy Collie, Dallas and a better running game that he would lead this team to a 10 or 11 win season.

                      Edit: FWIW, the colts were ranked 23 rd last year in scoring defense and this year they are 32. That number drops into the mid 20's if the Colts have Peyton this year. IF the defense plays with a lead it can be deadly.
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 10-24-2011, 02:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        I love how everyone says these types of comments but all that matters is the scoreboard. IF Peyton would have played this year he would have had the most 4th quarter comeback wins in the history of the nfl. IIRC, I believe he is tied with Marino in that stat. (Makes you wonder why?)

                        Point is we know what Manning could do with this team last year in which they had an increbible amount of injuries to key players. I think its safe to say that with a healthy Collie, Dallas and a better running game that he would lead this team to a 10 or 11 win season.

                        Edit: FWIW, the colts were ranked 23 rd last year in scoring defense and this year they are 32. That number drops into the mid 20's if the Colts have Peyton this year. IF the defense plays with a lead it can be deadly.
                        Fact is you don't know if manning would have lead a comeback in any game...so it's foolish to say he would have done so.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                          Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                          Sometimes I feel like karma is biting the Colts in the *** big time for blowing the 2009 season of going 16-0.
                          You mean losing the SB wasn't enough of a punishment. Which made throwing that opportunity away even more worthless.

                          Of course you could also look at it as a blessing in disguise because Caldwell may have been given a pass for this dismal season.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                            http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2011...anapolis-colts

                            World Series ratings top Saints-ColtsEmailPrintComments160Associated Press
                            Highlight Of The Night
                            Derek Holland pitches 8 1/3 scoreless innings as the Rangers defeat the Cardinals in Game 4 to even the World Series.Highlight Of The Night
                            VIDEO PLAYLIST
                            Highlight Of The Night
                            Highlight Of The NightDerek Holland pitches 8 1/3 scoreless innings as the Rangers defeat the Cardinals in Game 4 to even the World Series.Saints March All Over Colts, 62-7
                            Saints March All Over Colts, 62-7Saints become only the fifth team to put up 62 since the mergerHolland Success From Controlled Emotions
                            Holland Success From Controlled EmotionsBuster Olney joins Mike and Mike in the morning to discuss the reason for Derek Holland's tremendous Game 4Holland and Napoli Seal the Win
                            Holland and Napoli Seal the WinTim Kurkjian and Richard Durrett discuss how Derek Holland and Mike Napoli helped tie the World Series 2-2.Tags: Texas Rangers, World Series, Derek Holland, Mike Napoli, Tim Kurkjian, Richard DurrettNEW YORK -- The World Series beat the NFL on Sunday night this time.


                            WS: Rangers vs. Cardinals
                            Complete coverage of the Rangers-Cardinals matchup. More ยป

                            A close Game 4 drew a higher preliminary television rating than the football rout. The Texas Rangers led the St. Louis Cardinals 1-0 into the sixth inning, winning 4-0. The baseball game on Fox earned a 10.1 overnight rating and 16 share.

                            The New Orleans Saints led the Peyton Manning-less Indianapolis Colts 21-0 after the first quarter of a 62-7 victory to draw an 8.2/13 on NBC.

                            Last year, Steelers-Saints on "Sunday Night Football" earned an 11.8/18 while the Giants-Rangers World Series drew a 10.4/16.

                            Ratings represent the percentage of all homes with televisions tuned into a program. Shares represent the percentage of all homes with TVs in use at the time. Overnight ratings measure the country's largest markets.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                              Bravo to the Colts!

                              They are throwing away a lost season to begin the rebuilding project next year, regardless if Peyton ever plays another down or not. It would be absolutely foolish for them to replace Caldwell at this point as he is following his normal decision making patterns while still enhancing the likelihood of losing every single game the Colts play. That way it doesn't seem nearly as much like they are purposely tanking the season.

                              Even if they fail in the Luck sweepstakes, they are very likely to pick up another really good player for any of several positions of need that riddle the roster at this point by drafting near the top of the draft, and might even be in the position to convert a star veteran + their pick into getting the first pick.

                              So, keep up the good work! Goooooooo Colts!!!!!!!!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Colts/Saints Game/Postgame

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                So, keep up the good work! Goooooooo Colts!!!!!!!!
                                Wouldn't that be "Keep up the bad work" ??

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X