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

Here's my plea

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

  • #76
    Re: Here's my plea

    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    I don't care. I've spent too much time on message boards and heard too many stories about the detriment an on the surface innocuous "joke" can cause to just brush it off because in this one instance it's not a big deal.

    I'm not trying to be a cowboy moderator or whatever, but words, heard to one's face or read off a screen, have an impact. Strictly my opinion but the type of statement you made is at the very least completely reckless. It has no place in civilized discussion. I'm not trying to get on the soapbox, but seriously, c'mon people; golden rule.
    He did recently say he threw a party when Myles Brand died, which was pretty tasteless (at best).

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Here's my plea

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      It wasn't impossible. Arguing that it wouldn't have been easy is one thing, arguing it is completely impossible to do is totally different.

      No doubt the FO would have to get creative, and it would most likely need more than one trade to happen, but that's not outside the realm of possbility. Just look at what StL did in the draft. They took their #2 pick, turned it into #6 with extra picks, then turned #6 into #14 and more extra picks.

      Picks 2-7 were all traded due to teams jockeying for position to get the high talent left overs. Not only that but there were 19 trades total for just the first round last year, with 3 teams making multiple trades out of the 19 total trades.
      St. Louis is the one who held the cards and they had no use for our number one pick. Not only would we have had to fix it in a way where we got the number 2 pick plus extra picks, but we would have also had to ensure that St. Louis got the equivalent of the amount of picks that the Skins were going to give them. What other team would be facilitating all of this? Maybe that's not 100% impossible, but it's about 99.9% impossible IMHO.

      St. Louis had no reason at all to facilitate some dream scenario for the Colts. They had the number 2 RGIII pick which they knew was complete gold. All they had to do was sit back and watch the offers pour in.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Here's my plea

        It can never be ignored that keeping Manning and passing on Luck or RG3 would've been a tremendous gamble considering Manning had just missed an entire season due to an injury that didn't (and still doesn't) have a high level of confidence that symptoms won't return.

        Admittedly the situation never should've occurred because the Colts never should've had been that bad in Manning's 2nd half of his career, and particularly in a year when the SB was to be played in his home stadium. We should've been watching the Manningless Colts and thinking what might've been if Manning was healthy. We should've been opining how this was the best defense the Colts had played in years. We should've been talking about how well the special teams were doing and the improvement they were showing. Instead we were talking about inept coaching, wondering who in their right mind thought our backup QB situation was acceptable, wondering what Polian had been thinking, and wondering if the defense couldn't stop the run or get an offense off the field how was the team ever going to have been a legitimate SB contender even with Manning.

        And there's any question why Poilan and son were let go? Let alone why Caldwell was let go?

        At 36 yrs old, even sans injury, there was 3-4 years at best you could count on Manning to maintain a high level of play. And with injury what was already a wildcard (because you just don't know when Father Time will strike) you now have the prospect that the surgery won't work or be a temporary fix at best.

        The Broncos needed a QB. They weren't in a situation where there was a potential franchise QB available to them in the draft. They could afford to take the gamble on Manning.

        Meanwhile the Colts were in a wholly different situation. They were staring at 2 franchise QB's in the draft that they could choose from or put all their eggs in the Manning basket and somehow navigate FA, trades, the salary cap, etc to try and put a much better team around Manning than was clearly waiting on him from what we'd just seen this past season. And all of that for 3-4 years in a perfect world scenario versus the potential of a rebuild around Luck or RG3. And the ability to wipe the slate clean, start clearing cap space, and instilling better coaching and system at the same time.

        If the Colts were picking a few notches down in the draft then Manning is probably still a Colt... and while Manning alone would've made the short-term future of the Colts look brighter, the long term future would've looked questionable at best (and short term would've always been up in the air due to Manning's neck status). Luck/RG3 gave them a chance at a bright long term future too.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Here's my plea

          It wasn't nearly the gamble everyone made it out to be. The next NFL announcer to get his medical degree, to know what they're talking about with injuries, will the be first. If I've got to listen to Brian Billick (sp?) talk about how he's amazed guys cramp in colder weather, I'll rip my ears off.

          Why people put stock into Chris Collinsworth bumping his gums together still baffles me, especially when it's rebutted by a medical doctor with his expertise in neck injuries.

          EDIT: And the salary cap issues were moot too. The offseason prior Irsay was willing to pay Peyton anything he wanted, and it was Peyton who decided he would take the more cap friendly deal. I still get a kick out of hearing that Irsay was willing to pay him anything in 2011, but how Peyton had to be cut in 2012.

          There's no doubt about it that finding an actual trading partner would have been the biggest hurdle, but I still think that if they wanted to get it done, they would have found a solution.
          Last edited by Since86; 10-16-2012, 02:04 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Here's my plea

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            It wasn't nearly the gamble everyone made it out to be. The next NFL announcer to get his medical degree, to know what they're talking about with injuries, will the be first. If I've got to listen to Brian Billick (sp?) talk about how he's amazed guys cramp in colder weather, I'll rip my ears off.

            I've got to hand it to you that you never once doubted that Peyton would comeback strong this season, whereas most seemed to fall into the trap that he wouldn't play again, or would be a shell of himself if he did.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Here's my plea

              Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
              BBS is a complete tool, but it would be irrational to keep Manning when this team was rebuilding.
              It's fine to think that, but I just don't see why the chief Colts blogger has to insult people who wanted a top 5 all-time QB to finish his career here, particularly when that QB is playing as good as ever right now.

              But as you say, BBS is a tool....

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Here's my plea

                Irsay IIRC said two things about Manning salary... one was he'd make him the highest paid player in the NFL... and the other was that his contract had to make sense. So he hedged his bets somewhat in what he was saying a couple of years ago.

                I'm not sure I'd identify Manning's last Colts' contract as particularly cap friendly.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Here's my plea

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  I'm not sure I'd identify Manning's last Colts' contract as particularly cap friendly.
                  I didn't say it was cap friendly, I said it was more cap friendly (than he would have gotten). It was Peyton's idea to sign a 1yr contract with a 3year extension, and it was due to question marks about his health. Had he signed a normal contract, the cap hit would have been more severe.

                  Salary cap issues were needed in order to make the more palatable. Just coming out and saying they needed to part ways, without other issues surrounding it, would have made it an even tougher pill to swallow than it already was.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Here's my plea

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    It can never be ignored that keeping Manning and passing on Luck or RG3 would've been a tremendous gamble considering Manning had just missed an entire season due to an injury that didn't (and still doesn't) have a high level of confidence that symptoms won't return.

                    Admittedly the situation never should've occurred because the Colts never should've had been that bad in Manning's 2nd half of his career, and particularly in a year when the SB was to be played in his home stadium. We should've been watching the Manningless Colts and thinking what might've been if Manning was healthy. We should've been opining how this was the best defense the Colts had played in years. We should've been talking about how well the special teams were doing and the improvement they were showing. Instead we were talking about inept coaching, wondering who in their right mind thought our backup QB situation was acceptable, wondering what Polian had been thinking, and wondering if the defense couldn't stop the run or get an offense off the field how was the team ever going to have been a legitimate SB contender even with Manning.

                    And there's any question why Poilan and son were let go? Let alone why Caldwell was let go?

                    At 36 yrs old, even sans injury, there was 3-4 years at best you could count on Manning to maintain a high level of play. And with injury what was already a wildcard (because you just don't know when Father Time will strike) you now have the prospect that the surgery won't work or be a temporary fix at best.

                    The Broncos needed a QB. They weren't in a situation where there was a potential franchise QB available to them in the draft. They could afford to take the gamble on Manning.

                    Meanwhile the Colts were in a wholly different situation. They were staring at 2 franchise QB's in the draft that they could choose from or put all their eggs in the Manning basket and somehow navigate FA, trades, the salary cap, etc to try and put a much better team around Manning than was clearly waiting on him from what we'd just seen this past season. And all of that for 3-4 years in a perfect world scenario versus the potential of a rebuild around Luck or RG3. And the ability to wipe the slate clean, start clearing cap space, and instilling better coaching and system at the same time.

                    If the Colts were picking a few notches down in the draft then Manning is probably still a Colt... and while Manning alone would've made the short-term future of the Colts look brighter, the long term future would've looked questionable at best (and short term would've always been up in the air due to Manning's neck status). Luck/RG3 gave them a chance at a bright long term future too.
                    Potential franchise QBs. One already is, the other, no so much.... Do you remember the Suck for Luck drive. Freeney mailed in the entire season. No one was really trying to win those games.....

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Here's my plea

                      I think it is clear based upon Peyton's new deal with Denver that there is one fact about the "split" that nobody was going to talk about out loud but is and was 100% true:

                      There was no way Peyton was going to play for the Colts or anybody else without, in fact, being the highest paid player in the NFL right now, this year, injury concerns be damned.

                      That was something that Jim Irsay could not quite swallow, and I don't blame him. An ongoing at risk 20 million dollar a year investment would certainly have taken away an ability to do meaningful team-building. There was an opportunity to start fresh with well-contained costs that fit better with a longer-term view.
                      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


                      • #86
                        Re: Here's my plea

                        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                        About to? It already did because people don't know how to use the ignore button.
                        Oh my gosh, dude, is that it? **** man, I was getting worried that he was going to kill the board. I didn't even know about this ignore function. Hot damn!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Here's my plea

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          That was something that Jim Irsay could not quite swallow, and I don't blame him.
                          Manning signed the contract AFTER he had neck surgery. In fact, he had already had two surgeries on his neck before he signed the contract. This is the major reason why I thought the Colts would end up keeping him.


                          Here's the Indystar's article about the second surgery, dated 5/24/2011.
                          http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...S03/110524011/

                          Here is the ESPN article about Manning signing the extension, dated 7/31/2011. It leads with this.
                          An injured Peyton Manning had been resisting Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay's attempts to make him the highest-paid player in the NFL.
                          http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/68...0-million-deal

                          The best part of the article, IMHO, is this:
                          "Signing Peyton was a top priority for this organization and we are thrilled that the deal is complete," Irsay said in a statement released by the team Saturday. "We feel that it is a salary cap friendly deal and it allows us more flexibility."
                          And that's why I hated the entire situation.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Here's my plea

                            I've never felt that the money was the main reason for Irsay's decision. But that 7/31/11 quote is important to note when fans say that keeping Manning would have been financial suicide for the franchise.

                            The number 1 pick was the white elephant in the room. Irsay didn't want to part with it under any circumstances and Peyton probably didn't want to play for us if we weren't willing to trade it for assets that could help him win now.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Here's my plea

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I've never felt that the money was the main reason for Irsay's decision. But that 7/31/11 quote is important to note when fans say that keeping Manning would have been financial suicide for the franchise.

                              The number 1 pick was the white elephant in the room. Irsay didn't want to part with it under any circumstances and Peyton probably didn't want to play for us if we weren't willing to trade it for assets that could help him win now.
                              Bingo!!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Here's my plea

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I've never felt that the money was the main reason for Irsay's decision. But that 7/31/11 quote is important to note when fans say that keeping Manning would have been financial suicide for the franchise.

                                The number 1 pick was the white elephant in the room. Irsay didn't want to part with it under any circumstances and Peyton probably didn't want to play for us if we weren't willing to trade it for assets that could help him win now.
                                There never really was a choice and Irsay knew it. He just couldn't tell the faithful Colts fans.

                                No one in their right mind is going to risk 90 million dollars on a rather old QB with multiple neck surgeries when the team wasn't going to contend and one of the best prospects in years was going to be available.

                                Did the Colts tank by overplaying Curtis Painter? I don't know. What I do know is that once they got that #1 pick they had no choice. Andrew Luck will put butts in seats for another 15 years or so...well after Peyton retired. ...and Andrew isn't going to cost nearly that much.

                                The good news for Peyton is that he's much better off in Denver salvaging the rest of his career.
                                Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-17-2012, 10:07 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X