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

NFL.com on the Colts Draft

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

  • #16
    Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

    Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
    Will you if they win? It's hard to believe someones supposed "Great ability to predict" when they have been on here for what? Six months? You don't have a great record or reputation on this site so why don't you just try and realize why there aren't people rushing to be like, "Olblu you are so right, why don't people believe you?" Theres a dose of reality.
    I have been posting on blogs for many years. I certainly will admit to being wrong if they do winner sooner that I have suggested. I have said what I had to say and now it is time to get behind these guys and see who is right. It will be at least a three year process or do you have them winning the Super Bowl before then?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      No, my problem with the draft is that we were drafting a QB number one at all. I thought we should have kept Manning and made a deal for the most overhyped player to ever come out of college football and fix the team up in all areas for many years. That was my choice. I would have resigned some of the stars and the Colts would be a contender to at least win the division this year..... You could have picked a QB prospect to develop behind Peyton and still had an enormous hall.... My opinion is (and it is only an opinion) that we will be losers for years while Peyton will have a chance at getting the SB with Denver.... If you read the first post in this thread you will see that some experts expect RGIII to be the real superstar, not Luck.
      THe bolded part goes back to the point of whether Manning wanted to be apart of a rebuilding process at all. Either way you have to release some guys to even resign Wayne and fix some of the holes on both sides of the line.

      Rookie players also take time to develop and Manning of all people knows this since he has carried a team for so long working with mediocre talent or YOUNG talent. Picks don't immediately fix anything and Manning knows that and I think it was clear from both sides that the marraige was over.

      Now why do I say that.. Irsay said he would be willing to work with Manning as long as he would restructure his deal like he would for other teams. THats the point some of you guys don't get. I believe IRsay would have kept him if Manning would have given him the Broncos deal but he wouldn't.

      It takes two to tango and I have to believe Manning found a better partner with more upside for his championship run. Your IDEAL situation doesn't work,, well atleast not with considerable risk to the health of the franchise ie Mannings recovery and severly limits the Colts from building a championship team (salary cap hit that fans simply don't understand or are too lazy to learn anything about).
      Last edited by Gamble1; 05-01-2012, 10:40 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
        THe bolded part goes back to the point of whether Manning wanted to be apart of a rebuilding process at all. Either way you have to release some guys to even resign Wayne and fix some of the holes on both sides of the line.

        Rookie players also take time to develop and Manning of all people knows this since he has carried a team for so long working with mediocre talent or YOUNG talent. Picks don't immediately fix anything and Manning knows that and I think it was clear from both sides that the marraige was over.

        No why do I say that.. Irsay said he would be willing to work with Manning as long as he would restructure his deal like he would for other teams. THats the point some of you guys don't get. I believe IRsay would have kept him if Manning would have given him the Broncos deal but he wouldn't.

        It takes two to tango and I have to believe Manning found a better partner with more upside for his championship run.
        If you believe anything Irsay says, I would like to talk to you about some swamp land. Much of the Colts problem last year was injuries not only to Manning but to other important players. Bring them back and you would give Houston a fight for first place. Houston lost two or three key players to free agency. They will still win the division this year but they are not quite as good as last year. That salary cap discussion is Teams can always find a way to make things work. Why should Peyton have restructured his deal. He got a BETTER deal for more money with Denver..... Even though people here said he should sign an incentive laden low price contract with the Colts that he would have to sign to get on with another team. I said , he will sign for money than his Colts deal. Who was right about that one? Great teams do not have to break down like this. Look at the Patriots and their record for the past 20 years with no end to winning in site. They rebuild on the fly while they win. The Colts should have been doing the same thing..... But, these are only opinions. Lets see how it works out........

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

          I'm betting Kirk Cousins wins a Super Bowl before Luck, RGIII, or Manning.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            If you believe anything Irsay says, I would like to talk to you about some swamp land. Much of the Colts problem last year was injuries not only to Manning but to other important players. Bring them back and you would give Houston a fight for first place. Houston lost two or three key players to free agency. They will still win the division this year but they are not quite as good as last year. That salary cap discussion is Teams can always find a way to make things work. Why should Peyton have restructured his deal. He got a BETTER deal for more money with Denver..... Even though people here said he should sign an incentive laden low price contract with the Colts that he would have to sign to get on with another team. I said , he will sign for money than his Colts deal. Who was right about that one? Great teams do not have to break down like this. Look at the Patriots and their record for the past 20 years with no end to winning in site. They rebuild on the fly while they win. The Colts should have been doing the same thing..... But, these are only opinions. Lets see how it works out........
            So bring back guys who are injury prone/overpaid and not very good anymore to fight for a division title. Who has signed Dallas Clark or Addai? NO one because they aren't very good anymore and Manning knows that.

            Again your ideal situation doesn't work because all the parties involved didn't think it was in their best interest. Why don't you understand that?

            So I should look at the Pats record in the last 20 years? Have you? They have had a 2-14 seaosn, a 5-11 season X2, a 6-10 season. Tom BRady's reign will end and no they don't rebuild on the fly. Once TOms retires that team will no longer be a superbowl contender and they will be a below 500 team.

            As far as the Manning deal its not better than the Colts since it involves only 18 million guaranteed in the first year and they can cut him loose 3X during the contract due to injury. Thats what IRsay wanted IMO.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

              Olblu, your lack of knowledge on the Salary cap and football in general is showing...Dwight Freeney is a problem, Mathis will be a problem and Wayne's contract...Add on to that this isn't an uncapped year which is where that "They can always find away around the cap" comment came from. Being a person whose undergraduate degree is in sports administration, guarantee you, the Colts need draft picks under the current circumstances because they are cheap. Wait for those more expensive contracts go out then they can play in free agency.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                Olblu, your lack of knowledge on the Salary cap and football in general is showing...Dwight Freeney is a problem, Mathis will be a problem and Wayne's contract...Add on to that this isn't an uncapped year which is where that "They can always find away around the cap" comment came from. Being a person whose undergraduate degree is in sports administration, guarantee you, the Colts need draft picks under the current circumstances because they are cheap. Wait for those more expensive contracts go out then they can play in free agency.
                The Colts do not play in free agency and I am glad that they do not. That is the best way to spend too much for players that are past their prime. They could have made it work. Watch Philly work that cap.... They always have enough room to sign whoever they want. I suppose you are going to tell me that if the Colts had gone 10-6 and Peyton was healthy, they would not have found a way to resign those players?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  So bring back guys who are injury prone/overpaid and not very good anymore to fight for a division title. Who has signed Dallas Clark or Addai? NO one because they aren't very good anymore and Manning knows that.

                  Again your ideal situation doesn't work because all the parties involved didn't think it was in their best interest. Why don't you understand that?

                  So I should look at the Pats record in the last 20 years? Have you? They have had a 2-14 seaosn, a 5-11 season X2, a 6-10 season. Tom BRady's reign will end and no they don't rebuild on the fly. Once TOms retires that team will no longer be a superbowl contender and they will be a below 500 team.

                  As far as the Manning deal its not better than the Colts since it involves only 18 million guaranteed in the first year and they can cut him loose 3X during the contract due to injury. Thats what IRsay wanted IMO.
                  I believe Brady went out for the season early a few seasons ago and the Pats slipped to 11 wins with a QB that had not started a game since high school.....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    The Colts do not play in free agency and I am glad that they do not. That is the best way to spend too much for players that are past their prime. They could have made it work. Watch Philly work that cap.... They always have enough room to sign whoever they want. I suppose you are going to tell me that if the Colts had gone 10-6 and Peyton was healthy, they would not have found a way to resign those players?

                    But they didn't...those are older guys, Peyton has health concerns so why keep them if he's gone? This team had a talent concern LONG before he came along. No one is going to take a paycut to go from a 3 win team to a 5 win team. It's just a reality of sports...that happens on teams going from 12-14 win...trust me. How many Bills players take paycuts? Also look at the guaranteed money and the cap figure. Colts haven't been great at working that cap figure...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                      Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                      But they didn't...those are older guys, Peyton has health concerns so why keep them if he's gone? This team had a talent concern LONG before he came along. No one is going to take a paycut to go from a 3 win team to a 5 win team. It's just a reality of sports...that happens on teams going from 12-14 win...trust me. How many Bills players take paycuts? Also look at the guaranteed money and the cap figure. Colts haven't been great at working that cap figure...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                        I believe Brady went out for the season early a few seasons ago and the Pats slipped to 11 wins with a QB that had not started a game since high school.....
                        INCORRECT. Matt cassel started a game in college...just not at quarterback...he started at running back against california

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                          I guess I will stop feeding the troll since you can't seem to find a comeback to that post.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                            Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                            I guess I will stop feeding the troll since you can't seem to find a comeback to that post.
                            I gave you a comeback. I said your post was ********..... You didn't answer mine. I said if he Colts had been 10-6 and Peyton had been healthy would they have found a way to resign all of the players and make another run. You never answered that. The answer is, of course they would have........

                            Why am I a troll because I don't agree with you? Why aren't you a troll then if you disagree with me?

                            There is a big double standard at play here.......

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: NFL.com on the Colts Draft

                              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                              INCORRECT. Matt cassel started a game in college...just not at quarterback...he started at running back against california
                              Well, excuse me......

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                I gave you a comeback. I said your post was ********..... You didn't answer mine. I said if he Colts had been 10-6 and Peyton had been healthy would they have found a way to resign all of the players and make another run. You never answered that. The answer is, of course they would have........

                                Why am I a troll because I don't agree with you? Why aren't you a troll then if you disagree with me?

                                There is a big double standard at play here.......
                                If you could read my post you would understand the difference financially and mr. Polian was not the best at manipulating his cap figures. See just about every contract (bethea in particular)...players aren't gonna take a paycut to stay on a bad team. Its just reality. Read before calling something "BS" skip, I mean olblu

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X