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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • Re: Non-Colts thread

    I hate the Patriots, but it's pretty clear they are going to walk right to the Super Bowl again and win it all. I see no one able to stay on their level.

    Tom Brady and that offense is just too dominant. They run over even some of the best defenses. Plus their defense has also improved a lot from last season as they've become a top defensive team.

    I'm guessing it'll be Patriots vs. Packers/Giants (yet again...) with the Patriots coming out on top.

    Comment


    • Re: Non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Trophy View Post
      I hate the Patriots, but it's pretty clear they are going to walk right to the Super Bowl again and win it all. I see no one able to stay on their level.

      Tom Brady and that offense is just too dominant. They run over even some of the best defenses. Plus their defense has also improved a lot from last season as they've become a top defensive team.

      I'm guessing it'll be Patriots vs. Packers/Giants (yet again...) with the Patriots coming out on top.

      Heard all this before.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • Re: Non-Colts thread

        The AFC is going to come down to Manning vs Brady.... I feel its destiny

        Hopefully Manning comes out on top....

        Then the Pats will have to deal with another back to back postseason losses by the Manning bros.

        Comment


        • Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by Trophy View Post
          I hate the Patriots, but it's pretty clear they are going to walk right to the Super Bowl again and win it all. I see no one able to stay on their level.

          Tom Brady and that offense is just too dominant. They run over even some of the best defenses. Plus their defense has also improved a lot from last season as they've become a top defensive team.

          I'm guessing it'll be Patriots vs. Packers/Giants (yet again...) with the Patriots coming out on top.

          Two years ago they beat the Jets 45-3 on MNF in December and when they met again in the playoffs everyone and their brother predicted another blowout win. The Jets pulled off a 28-21 upset. I'm not saying the same thing will happen here but if the Texans win out then a rematch would be in Houston.

          Comment


          • Re: Non-Colts thread

            What makes them scarier than ever before is their improvement defensively. Offensively, they continue to barrel over their opponent.

            It seems pretty likely the conference championships will be Patriots/Broncos. Packers/Giants. All teams with top level QBs.

            I don't know if Denver's defense will have an answer to stop Brady.

            However, if there is any team out there that could stop the Patriots, it is the Giants. It could once again, be NE/NYG in the Super Bowl. Both seem to be the most balanced teams in the NFL.

            I really hate to say it, but it looks like NE's year.

            Comment


            • Re: Non-Colts thread

              Patriots are clearly the best team in the AFC. Just dominated the hyped up Texans.

              I see a Texans/Broncos vs Patriots in the AFC Championship. Hope it is the Colts in there, but if not, it'd be nice to see Peyton get another shot at Brady this season.
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                Patriots are clearly the best team in the AFC. Just dominated the hyped up Texans.

                I see a Texans/Broncos vs Patriots in the AFC Championship. Hope it is the Colts in there, but if not, it'd be nice to see Peyton get another shot at Brady this season.
                They're really good, but I believe the Texans are a little overrated though
                Smothered Chicken!

                Comment


                • Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                  What makes them scarier than ever before is their improvement defensively. Offensively, they continue to barrel over their opponent.

                  It seems pretty likely the conference championships will be Patriots/Broncos. Packers/Giants. All teams with top level QBs.

                  I don't know if Denver's defense will have an answer to stop Brady.

                  However, if there is any team out there that could stop the Patriots, it is the Giants. It could once again, be NE/NYG in the Super Bowl. Both seem to be the most balanced teams in the NFL.

                  I really hate to say it, but it looks like NE's year.
                  NE's defense still looks soft to me.

                  The Pats look a lot like the pre-SB Colts. That doesn't mean they can't win the SB, but they'd better hope the Giants aren't there waiting for them again.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Non-Colts thread

                    We've seen this before with NE. I still think they'll have a playoff exit. I'm still going with my early season pick --- the Giants. They're right on schedule for a typical Giants SB run... they're past their November swoon and picking up steam in December. I think Eli is the best playoff QB in the league.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Non-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      NE's defense still looks soft to me.
                      You don't lead the league in turnovers by a huge margin through being soft. That, coupled with leading the league in fewest offensive turnovers, is key to the success. But it's a nervous trend, since if one opponent doesn't make any mistakes, then that is all you need to fail.

                      The cornerback play is a question mark, since Dennard is a rookie and Talib just arrived, but you can't say the front 7 is soft in the least. They are aided by the fact that they can blitz more with Talib and Dennard being solid. Wilfork was being double-teamed all night and was still pushing the O-lineman back into the QB's lap, deflecting one pass, causing a fumble, and re-routing ball carriers all the time. The lanes he was opening up for Mayo, Spikes, and the rookie Chandler Thompson to hit the QB was impressive too. Plus McCourty looks way more confident as a safety than as a corner.

                      I read somewhere that the passer rating of the opposing QB had been cut in half, comparing the last 7 games to the first 7 games.

                      To be honest, the defense needs to be just above average, though, because of the guy running the show on offense. Put it this way: There are QBs who tend not to make any mistakes. Then there are QBs who are gunslingers. But there is only one QB who almost always plays like a mistake-free gunslinger. Last night ESPN put up a graphic on players with the most 4 TD games, with Favre on top and other familiar names after. I said to my wife at the time "I wish they'd put up the graphic on who has thrown 4TDs with ZERO interceptions!". About 10 minutes later they did. You KNOW who is on top of that list. The QB who consistently avoids making turnovers at a rate never seen before in top NFL QBs.

                      The point about the Jets blowout two years ago is a good one though. Each game is its own beast. Any please no Giants. I don't think there is another team that gives the Pats as much fits with their D-line, regular season or postseason. For some reason it's just a bad bad matchup.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-11-2012, 03:13 PM.
                      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


                      • Re: Non-Colts thread

                        So I guess Pats fans gotta be pulling hard for the Colts in these next two games against Houston?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Non-Colts thread

                          Definitely. Despite last night, you don't want a re-match in Houston. Plus SF is no gimme in Foxboro, so go Colts, times 2 even!

                          The Colts either get a psychologically damaged Texans team or a super pissed-off Texans team. I hope it's the first.
                          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


                          • Re: Non-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            Definitely. Despite last night, you don't want a re-match in Houston. Plus SF is no gimme in Foxboro, so go Colts.

                            You either get a psychologically damaged Texans team or a super pissed-off Texans team. I hope it's the first.
                            I predict a loss on Sunday. But I think we'll beat them here on December 30, and if we just beat them once then that means all the Pats have to do is win out. Last night probably sealed the deal that Houston won't be able to rest anyone against us in that final game of the season, unless of course the Pats lose another game.

                            Houston's other opponent is Minnesota at home. Not exactly a pushover either, though you have to think Houston wins that one.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Non-Colts thread

                              I can see Houston losing twice.

                              This sounds funny, but the Patriots did not play particularly well last night on offense, at least after the first quarter. Welker was targeted 9 times and made three catches, dropping some very catchable balls. Hernandez had more drops than usual too. Brady went through a 1-7 stretch in the 3rd Q. They were fortunate to recover TWO lost fumbles on touchdown drives. As a team the Patriots punted more often than they have all year.

                              It's being nitpicky and sounds a little crazy, but overall it was not even one of the Patriots best offensive games, start to finish, of the year. Which to me makes Houston's ineptitude more telling and, from your point of view, encouraging.
                              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


                              • Re: Non-Colts thread

                                http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/stor...k-jets-waivers

                                Jets bring back Braylon Edwards





                                Jets A Playoff Team?

                                Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless give their thoughts on the Jets keeping their playoff hopes alive.Tags: Woody Johnson, Mike Tannenbaum, Playoffs, Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, First Take, Rex Ryan


                                NEXT VIDEO





                                Sunday Blitz: Jets-Jaguars Recap





                                One week after blasting the New York Jets on Twitter, calling them "idiots," Braylon Edwards is one of them -- again.


                                The well-traveled wide receiver reunited Tuesday with the Jets, who acquired him on waivers. Edwards was released Monday from the Seattle Seahawks' injury-reserve list.


                                The Jets were willing to forgive and forget because they're desperate for bodies at receiver. A knee injury to Stephen Hill, coupled with Edwards' release, set the stage for the unlikely reunion.






                                Back Once Again, It's Incredible

                                Braylon Edwards' return to the Jets immediately made six things, including a quote from "The Godfather," come to the mind of Rich Cimini. Story




                                Classic Jets. They could have added any available receiver, but chose to zero in on the guy who recently ripped them, James Walker writes. Story




                                Edwards took a happier tone on Twitter on Tuesday afternoon.

                                "It feels great to be going home," Edwards tweeted. "Thanks to all of jet nation that continuously supported me and pushed for me. I'm back and it's go time."

                                Edwards was a productive player for the Jets in 2009 and 2010, but they opted not to re-sign him. A week ago, he came to the defense of embattled quarterback Mark Sanchez, ripping the organization in a tweet that said: "Don't blame Sanchez. I played there. Blame the idiots calling shots. Mark is a beast and will prove it when given a proper chance."


                                He apologized in another tweet, calling it an "emotional outburst" and admitting that he "disrespected and insulted an administration that I have the utmost respect for."


                                A short time later, Edwards was waived/injured, landing on the Seahawks' IR list after he passed through waivers for the first time.


                                The Jets' depleted receiving corps, already down Santonio Holmes (he suffered a season-ending foot injury in Week 4), lost Hill to a knee sprain Sunday in Jacksonville. Clyde Gates, whose role had increased in recent weeks, is out indefinitely with a concussion.


                                It left them with only two healthy, experienced receivers, Jeremy Kerley and Chaz Schilens. They also have journeyman Mardy Gilyard, whom they signed off the street two weeks ago, and rookie Jordan White.


                                Edwards was one of Sanchez's favorite targets in 2009 and 2010, recording 88 receptions for 1,445 yards and 11 touchdowns in his two seasons in New York. Since then, he has battled knee issues and his career has declined. He caught 15 passes last season with the San Francisco 49ers and only eight this year with the Seahawks. The Jets reportedly tried to trade for him earlier this season.


                                "You guys know what I've always said about Braylon in the past, so you know how I feel about him," coach Rex Ryan said Monday, when asked about the possibility of acquiring Edwards. "But right now, I think we'll just focus on the guys we have."


                                The Jets waived running back Kahlil Bell Tuesday morning to create a roster spot for Edwards.


                                His recent defense of Sanchez notwithstanding, Edwards took a subtle jab at the quarterback in the preseason, saying he paled in comparison to Seahawks rookie Russell Wilson.


                                "I see better things," he said, comparing Wilson to Sanchez as a rookie in 2009. "It's his approach. It's very veteran-like. He studies film; he breaks it down. He

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X