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

Luck so far

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

  • Re: Luck so far

    Originally posted by bunt View Post
    Exactly. And once they leave, it's very unlikely they come back. If they want this to be the premier Pacers forum, and they want to keep it that way, they need to do something besides sitting on their hands. Banning me or having others like yourself or travmil leave will come back and bite the moderators hard.
    So complain to them and give them an example where I broke the forum rules. If you have no examples, get over yourselves. I don't want anyone to leave but I'm not going anywhere either....

    Comment


    • Re: Luck so far

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      So complain to them and give them an example where I broke the forum rules. If you have no examples, get over yourselves. I don't want anyone to leave but I'm not going anywhere either....
      Well if it was against forum rules to post blatant lies over and over you'd go bye bye. Apparently it's not so I have to resort to calling you out for lying and reminding you about it when you try to skip past.

      I'd really like to go back to not posting and just observing but until you stop trolling and lying...

      Comment


      • Re: Luck so far

        Originally posted by bunt View Post
        Well if it was against forum rules to post blatant lies over and over you'd go bye bye. Apparently it's not so I have to resort to calling you out for lying and reminding you about it when you try to skip past.

        I'd really like to go back to not posting and just observing but until you stop trolling and lying...
        Which make you, not me, the troll. I haven't lied about anything. You wouldn't accept any proof from me so the problem is with you, not me.... you can crawl back under your troll rock now...

        Comment


        • Re: Luck so far

          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
          Which make you, not me, the troll. I haven't lied about anything. You wouldn't accept any proof from me so the problem is with you, not me.... you can crawl back under your troll rock now...
          Haha I admit I'm trolling you, but not the entire board. That's the difference. Go back and prove each of my bullets points in post #415 if you're not lying or trolling. But see, we've been down that road and you can't or won't.

          Carry on...

          Comment


          • Re: Luck so far

            Travmil's sig explained very well why you should be banned. It's a set of rules you're breaking.

            If you're aware you're doing it, you're a troll. If you're not aware you're just the dumbest human being on earth. Either way, nobody should have to be subjected to such stupidity.

            Comment


            • Re: Luck so far

              Originally posted by bunt View Post
              Haha I admit I'm trolling you, but not the entire board. That's the difference. Go back and prove each of my bullets points in post #415 if you're not lying or trolling. But see, we've been down that road and you can't or won't.

              Carry on...
              I have, you just won't accept the proof.... I did the same thing for the offshore betting but I think the mods cracked down on his "dumbass" comments. He is very quiet now. If you admit you are a troll, they should just ban you and be done with it but that is just me..... I may have an opinion but I let the mods be the mods and I try to follow their guidelines....

              Comment


              • Re: Luck so far

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                Travmil's sig explained very well why you should be banned. It's a set of rules you're breaking.

                If you're aware you're doing it, you're a troll. If you're not aware you're just the dumbest human being on earth. Either way, nobody should have to be subjected to such stupidity.
                Wow, this is getting good. Dumbest human being on earth and stupid. Nothing I have said is stupid at all and I back it up with stats and facts. You just don't like what I try to show you..... Am I off of ignore now?

                Comment


                • Re: Luck so far

                  The reason for mod intervention is that every thread disintegrates into conflict and nastiness and never progresses to any kind of meaningful discussion.

                  So mods while you clearly can't see an overt violation of the rules the spirit of this board is violated with every thread pertaining to the colts. If you let this continue you may as well kiss the Colt board goodbye. You seem to be confused as to how to handle this because you can't be pleased with this board as it is.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Luck so far

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    Green Bay is not a good defense. I had them in fantasy league and quickly dumped them. They are a bit better than last year but that is the biggest problem Green Bay has, the defense. Chicago is a good defense and you saw how they ate Luck up. I think RGIII would have better stats than Luck no matter how often they throw it because he adds a different dimension with his ability to run and he is just a more accurate passer with a much stronger arm than Luck. QBR is a ******** stat that is the only one you can find that ranks Luck high. I have seen no one but ESPN use it and announcers and television analysts do not use it. You have to be a top three QB once to be there for a long time. Luck has to be a top 25 QB first. RGIII is already in the top five. Yes, Washington has the much better team and they play in a tough division. I don't regret the Colts choice. I wouldn't want to have to see RGIII play behind that miserable line knowing it will take years to get better. Luck is not the choice that I regret. Bad franchises and the Colts are a bad franchise except for the Peyton years, always break down the team to rebuild. Good franchise just don't do that. They may come down a little for a year or two and then they are right back chasing a Super Bowl. Teams like New England, Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Baltimore stay close to the top all of the time. The reason is management. The Giants always tend to field a good team. The Colts are a mess right now and it is going to be years to rebuild it. By the time they get a defense and a line and replace the 25 or so players they need to replace, Luck will be long gone from the scene (and so will I) to be replaced by the next "sure thing".
                    Green Bay Packers: 13th in yards allowed and first in sacks.

                    Maybe you're confusing last year with this year. Their scoring defense is 18th, but by most metrics this is at least a decent defense.

                    The Bears are the number one defense, and Luck moved the ball pretty well on them. Not just a "good" defense, but number one. Yes, he threw a few picks, and I'm okay with that. Growing pains and all.

                    And before you dismiss QBR, maybe you should learn what it is. To me it is a far more complete evaluation than the traditional NFL passer rating, which itself has taken much criticism over the years.

                    The accuracy issues, as addressed before, mostly result from the play-calling. Yes, I see Luck throw balls too high, but that is easily corrected. He plays in a vertical offense, and RGIII does not. I won't call RGIII a dinker-and-dunker, but then again Brady has been accused of the same, and everyone knows how great he is. Different ways to move the ball. I do, however, expect Luck to drastically improve in the redzone.

                    You don't even acknowledge the undeniably *good* things about Luck, like the incredible clutchness, his *own* athleticism, and the fact the kid perseveres and never hangs his head despite playing behind probably the worst offensive line in the NFL, with a defense to challenge the o-line's own lack of talent. Instead you compare him to someone as negatively remembered as Jeff George. First of all, there is zero comparison -- that is just as asinine as it gets and reeks of some kind of grudge against the kid, who is by all accounts a standout character. And you "wonder" why people are upset.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Luck so far

                      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                      Wow, this is getting good. Dumbest human being on earth and stupid. Nothing I have said is stupid at all and I back it up with stats and facts. You just don't like what I try to show you..... Am I off of ignore now?
                      Lol, but mostly with outright lies and opinions. You haven't proven any of your many lies, you only try to dance around them.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Luck so far

                        Originally posted by bunt View Post
                        Lol, but mostly with outright lies and opinions. You haven't proven any of your many lies, you only try to dance around them.
                        No, I didn't dance around them at all. I posted proof for all. I can't help it if you are reading challenged....

                        Comment


                        • Re: Luck so far

                          I find it funny that somehow all of us are wrong and he is somehow the only one who is right on this subject. The odds aren't really in his favor. But of course, we are all Luck homers (that's his argument, correct?).
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Luck so far

                            Is everyone getting an infraction or just me?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Luck so far

                              He's already admitted multiple times that he's only being a complete troll because he doesn't like that Manning is gone and Luck is somehow at fault for enabling that to happen and being his replacement.

                              Why he has taken it upon himself to harrass the forum is beyond me. No one here had anything to do with Manning not being a Colt anymore.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Luck so far

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                Is everyone getting an infraction or just me?
                                I wouldn't vote for you to get an infraction but I don't break the forum rules in any way. Perhaps the mods just get tired of hearing people complain about me because they don't agree with what I have to say... I am sure some did get infractions because they broke those rules. I don't recall that you ever resorted to calling names like they did.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X