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

Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

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

  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    The only curse I believe in is the one the General has laid on IU...... I want to see him win that for the fifth time... That might put it out of reach for a very long time....
    I think he's already put it out of reach for a long time with four.

    Comment


    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

      Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
      So one loss disqualifies Matt Ryan all of a sudden? Especially in a game he played well in?

      Lord knows how Luck is still in this running with the Bears/Jets games

      I hope Manning wins his 5th this year!
      No, of course not but if he went undefeated no one else would have a chance..... ... Luck isn't in the running. I am sure some article or poll says he is but he is not....

      Comment


      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
        Peyton has serious competition from Andrew Luck in the MVP race. Matt Ryan blew it against a bad Saints team today, and didn't look like an MVP when the game was on the line
        Peyton has no competition from Luck. That award goes to a player on a team with one of the best records in football.... Manning may win out from here or lose one game. Luck plays the Texas and unless the Texans have home field clinched, they won't win either of those games in spite of your guarantee. They won't beat New England either and Detroit will be a tough road game for them.... ...
        Last edited by OlBlu; 11-12-2012, 08:46 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

          I hate that Denver played the likes of the Texans, Falcons, and Pats early in the season when Manning was still trying to find his rhythm. I'd love to see those matchups right now.

          Comment


          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I hate that Denver played the likes of the Texans, Falcons, and Pats early in the season when Manning was still trying to find his rhythm. I'd love to see those matchups right now.
            Don't worry, you've got the playoffs to revisit that dream.
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I hate that Denver played the likes of the Texans, Falcons, and Pats early in the season when Manning was still trying to find his rhythm. I'd love to see those matchups right now.

              I honestly don't think they'd be any different. The same criticisms you could make of Peyton now, you could make of him then. His decision making is still top notch, but the arm strength is not there, I think even Peyton would agree with this. He floats a lot of passes and a lot of them are wobbly. It's a really testament to just how smart of a QB and game manager he is that he is so good right now, because very few starting QBs are throwing a ball with less zip right now than Peyton (it also shows just how overrated arm strength is, but I digress). My fear though for Peyton is that if you look at the team's that he has struggled against, they are teams that can make turnovers on those floaters through speed and coverage. That will be key in the playoffs.


              Comment


              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                Don't worry, you've got the playoffs to revisit that dream.
                Very very true......

                Comment


                • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  Peyton has no competition from Luck. That award goes to a player on a team with one of the best records in football.... Manning may win out from here or lose one game. Luck plays the Texas and unless the Texans have home field clinched, they won't win either of those games in spite of your guarantee. They won't beat New England either and Detroit will be a tough road game for them.... ...
                  The Broncos don't have anymore wins than the Colts. As of now. Why Manning is getting more credit for an already good Bronco team that has the same record as a rookie QB who has led his absolutely awful team to the same amount of wins is sort of baffling.
                  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: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    The Broncos don't have anymore wins than the Colts. As of now. Why Manning is getting more credit for an already good Bronco team that has the same record as a rookie QB who has led his absolutely awful team to the same amount of wins is sort of baffling.
                    You can't really compare the two anyways

                    Manning provides stability to the QB position something despite Tebow's comebacks he never really provided. The Colts have the last place schedule I don't know if they could really hang with the better teams of the league they did get blown out by the Bears and Jets of all teams.

                    I think if Manning were here we'd have beaten Jacksonville at home(maybe Jets) but still wouldn't change anything come January this team is not an elite one.

                    The Broncos went from good to elite with Manning and an improved D

                    Comment


                    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      You can't really compare the two anyways

                      Manning provides stability to the QB position something despite Tebow's comebacks he never really provided. The Colts have the last place schedule I don't know if they could really hang with the better teams of the league they did get blown out by the Bears and Jets of all teams.

                      I think if Manning were here we'd have beaten Jacksonville at home(maybe Jets) but still wouldn't change anything come January this team is not an elite one.

                      The Broncos went from good to elite with Manning and an improved D

                      The Broncos haven't done any better than the Colts against the good teams. The Falcons, Texans, and Pats all had fairly comfortable victories over the Broncos.

                      As far as the Jets loss is concerned, that's just the NFL for you. We are much better now than we were then and the Jets are much worse. The Jets were 2-3 when they played us and were trying to save their season. The Colts beat the Dolphins, who killed the Jets last week. The Colts were obviously killed by the Jets when they played them. This week, the Dolphins got killed by the Titans, who the Colts beat. That's just the NFL for ya.

                      The Bears are a pretty damn good team. That was Luck's first game ever. We were never going to win that game. But we have beat the Packers and Vikings, who are both solid teams. The Dolphins also looked decent at the time when we played them.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                        Manning now has 423 TDs thus far and is tied with Elway for most wins of all time.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                          McGahee to IR: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...eason-is-over/

                          doesn't help Denver's chances

                          hate to see season-ending injuries


                          edit: OK, new twist. He can return after 8 weeks. meaning, if they make it to the AFCCG.


                          http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-championship/
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 11-21-2012, 01:50 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: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                            http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/86...denver-broncos

                            RB gets Peyton Manning autograph


                            Updated: November 27, 2012, 4:13 PM ET
                            ESPN.com news services
                            1K
                            402
                            2K
                            Email
                            Print






                            Jamaal Charles Gets Peyton Manning Autograph

                            Marcellus Wiley doesn't think it is a big deal that Jamaal Charles asked for Peyton Manning's autograph following a loss.Tags: Marcellus Wiley, Autograph, Charles-Manning, Manning-Charles

                            Kansas City Chiefs running back Jamaal Charles apparently was so impressed with Peyton Manning's performance against his team that he asked for the quarterback's autograph after the game.






                            Williamson: Not A Big Deal

                            NFL players getting autographs from one another is more common than you might think, ESPN.com's Bill Williamson writes. Blog

                            • Vote: OK to get autograph?



                            In its postgame report, KCTV aired video of Charles waiting for Manning as he departed the stadium to get his autograph. Manning rallied the AFC West-leading Denver Broncos to their eighth win of the season as the last-place Chiefs dropped their eighth straight game.


                            "My mom wanted this autograph," he told the television station.


                            Charles, in a tweet Tuesday afternoon, thanked his Twitter followers for their support by writing, "Thank for the support and relax on the P Manning story, just two warriors showing each other respect..."


                            Receiver Dwayne Bowe, meanwhile, got his picture taken with Manning after Sunday's game.


                            "It's Peyton Manning," he said. "Who wouldn't want a picture with him?"






                            Mike and Mike in the Morning



                            Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic react to the report that Jamaal Charles asked Peyton Manning for an autograph following Broncos-Chiefs. Plus, ESPN's Buster Olney weighs in.

                            More Podcasts »



                            Bowe, who is scheduled to be a free agent after the season and is playing this year under the Chiefs' franchise tag, was asked whether he'd like to catch passes from the future Hall of Famer as well.


                            "That, too, but right now the best thing I have is a picture," he told KCTV.


                            Charles had 23 rushes for 107 yards in the Chiefs' 17-9 loss. Bowe caught four passes for 41 yards.


                            Former Chiefs player Rich Baldinger, who was in KCTV's studio after the segment aired, took offense to Kansas City's two biggest offensive stars' actions.


                            Baldinger, a former offensive lineman who played in 12 NFL seasons, said he never asked for an autograph during his playing career.


                            "I don't understand it at that moment," he said. "They were smiling and laughing after the loss like that today. I just think it just goes to show what this team's about. I don't know if winning's really that important."


                            Charles, however, got support from another top NFL running back Tuesday.


                            Texans running back Arian Foster tweeted that he got Charles' autograph at the 2010 Pro Bowl, and that he exchanges with players "damn near every game."

                            Comment


                            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                              http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap10...tream#photo=10

                              Comment


                              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                                Schefter sez the MVP race is down to two people, and you know who they are.

                                http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/...hefter-10-spot

                                I think his article shortchanges Tom Brady in only noting TD/INT ratio as the one (HUGE) advantage he has on Manning. QB rating, total QBR, win/loss record, historic productivity of the Patriots offense (averaging more points than 2007!), and the head-to-head result are also all in his favor. There's even the insinuation that Brady's had a worse season than last year due to the higher number of passing yards he had last year. Put this years ground attack on last years team, or last year's ground attack on this year's team, and the numbers would equalize. He's having as good a season as ever and has the ability (and willingness!) to hand off to the guys scoring the most rushing touchdowns in the league.

                                The stretch run for the Patriots is a serious challenge to their recent run of scoring points in bunches- 4 top 10 teams in scoring defense: Houston, San Francisco, and two games vs. Miami (don't laugh, their D is pretty good), and a breather with Jacksonville. The Broncos meanwhile have a number of well below-average defensive teams: KC twice, Cleveland, Oakland, plus a tough one in Baltimore.

                                Thus the Manning/Brady MVP race could get tighter (logically it has to favor Brady right now, other then the "feel-good comeback" angle)

                                http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/te...sition/defense
                                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

                                Working...
                                X