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

Colts/Pats --- here we go again

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

  • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

    It seems to make sense to LuckSwagger to openly wish for a Brady injury. I wouldn't presume to suggest he speaks for any Colts fans, but it is also notable that nobody here called him out on it either.
    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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      It seems to make sense to LuckSwagger to openly wish for a Brady injury. I wouldn't presume to suggest he speaks for any Colts fans, but it is also notable that nobody here called him out on it either.

      I don't have to chide a brand new poster to prove that I don't want Brady injured.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I don't have to chide a brand new poster to prove that I don't want Brady injured.
        Fair point. I let OlBlu Jr. get under my skin and overreacted. Sorry about that.
        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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          It seems to make sense to LuckSwagger to openly wish for a Brady injury. I wouldn't presume to suggest he speaks for any Colts fans, but it is also notable that nobody here called him out on it either.
          Uh, I thought that I pointed out the fact that Gronk wasn't even in on that final drive was disagreement enough. Clearly I thought it went without saying that I didn't agree with his comment on Brady.

          I don't mind running up the score, but you do have to live with the complications if a starter gets hurt, not what happened with Gronk, but the point still stands. personally, this isn't pee wee football, if you don't want the other team to beat the snot out of you then stop them. It's not like football is a "gentleman's" game or whatever it is a rough, physical game, don't go out there looking to hurt people, but if you want to win by 50 and you're ok with the risks that come along with that then so be it.


          Comment


          • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

            It's funny how Fantasy Football influences your perspective on everything. I've probably been almost as bummed about this Gronk injury as Pats fans are. This really screws up my championship chances as I doubt he is back before the fantasy playoffs start. TE is a very tough position to fill, especially when the TE was your best player. It's not like RB or WR where you can always find some OK waiver options.

            Maybe I should take a look at Dallas Clark? He had a TD yesterday and his QB has been playing well.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

              At the risk of being called a Sally Sunshine, Gronkowski has been banged up all year with leg/hip/back issues and chances are that he was going to keep playing every game despite missing practices, and keep being on the "probable" list all of the time (and for REAL reasons). Now the Patriots are without him, but have a full 3 game lead in the division. Meaning, they damn well ought to be able to win the division and thus make the playoffs anyway.

              Then... they get Gronk back at 100%, maybe more healthy than he would have been otherwise, in time for a home playoff game.

              Thus the short term pain may prove a benefit in winning when it really counts. Goodbye first round bye, but that has seemed to be relatively unimportant to winning a championship. Winning in Baltimore or Houston is a challenge, but they aren't juggernauts IMO.
              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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                Hate to sound like a dick, but it serves them right for keeping the starters in there that late in the game. **** you, New England.
                I feel bad for Gronkowski, but yeah, it's about time that bit Belichick in the ***.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  I feel bad for Gronkowski, but yeah, it's about time that bit Belichick in the ***.
                  So you disagree with Tony Dungy, who said (paraphrasing here)...

                  You have a set group for the PAT conversion. I always had Jeff Saturday playing RG on PATs and never even considered taking him off, no matter what the score was. You sometimes sit players on offense or on defense, because they are used to subbing out. You practice those changes and adjustments. The special teams guys are different-- they work together all week as one unit and they play as one unit, whatever the score.
                  So you feel that it's also a shame that it never bit Dungy in the ***, or any other of the large majority of coaches who run special teams the exact same way?

                  I think what we have here is a fundamental lack of understanding of how coaches use specific special teams units. This isn't college where you have 80 guys. You have 42 guys plus kicker, punter, and long-snapper to cover offense, defense, and four core special teams units. If you take out you top 10 "key players" by however means you use to decide that, then I am not sure how you can expect to run the play and (for example) not get the kicker clobbered. The best blockers play up front on the PAT conversion. That has to include Gronk, particularly in a week where the teams two starting guards were both out with injuries.

                  At some point Gronk gets the tap on the shoulder and gets the message to take the rest of the game off on offense (and he did, before the last scoring drive). But he knows he will be out there on the special teams unit he practiced with all week. That's just how it works, in New England, in Indianapolis, EVERYWHERE.
                  Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 11-19-2012, 05:08 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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                    Bruschi:

                    When I was playing defense and we were blowing out an opponent, you were told, "You're out of the game now, Tedy, but you're still on the field goal block team." It's just the way it is in football.

                    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/boston/chat/_/id/46155

                    So it seems to have nothing at all to do with anything Bill Belichick does differently than anyone else.

                    But it's some convenient lame excuse to criticize Belichick for, so please by all means go back to the bashing party and pardon the fact-based interruption.
                    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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      It seems to make sense to LuckSwagger to openly wish for a Brady injury. I wouldn't presume to suggest he speaks for any Colts fans, but it is also notable that nobody here called him out on it either.
                      We've been told not to respond to this type of post as it is considered a mob mentality.
                      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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I don't have to chide a brand new poster to prove that I don't want Brady injured.
                        New? Maybe a new name, but his first posts were to tell us how we (admins) should deal with a particular situation. I don't know who he is but one should not assume he's new to PD.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          Bruschi:

                          When I was playing defense and we were blowing out an opponent, you were told, "You're out of the game now, Tedy, but you're still on the field goal block team." It's just the way it is in football.

                          http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/boston/chat/_/id/46155

                          So it seems to have nothing at all to do with anything Bill Belichick does differently than anyone else.

                          But it's some convenient lame excuse to criticize Belichick for, so please by all means go back to the bashing party and pardon the fact-based interruption.
                          Bruschi is a scrub
                          Smothered Chicken!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                            My take on the outcome of this game, btw:

                            I'm not taking a whole lot from it. There were some freak things that occurred that completely changed momentum. We're a young team, and games like this are gonig to happen. I know Indy can play better. You're not going to give up two pick-sixes and a kickoff return for a TD very often, especially in one game. When those happened, we were still very much in the game and actually came out and took a quick lead. The wheels fell off a bit. Happens.

                            I have a feeling the next time these teams meet, the outcome won't be so lopsided. Oh, and having their starters in there so late in the game was pretty f'n stupid. Gronk aside, why are they risking anyone with 5 mins left being up 4 touchdowns?
                            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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Gronk aside, why are they risking anyone with 5 mins left being up 4 touchdowns?
                              For their last scoring drive, beginning at 7:37, Gronk was on the bench for the entire drive. So was Ridley. Welker went out after the short /safe 3rd-and-7 completion at about the six minute mark, which was followed by 6 straight handoffs to the backup tailback Vareen. The last 3 of those came from Mallett handing it off, on the final possession.

                              Flip side: Were the Colts risking all their starters with 4 mins left, in the game, being down 4 touchdowns? Yes. Is that stupid? I think not, but if somebody does thinks it is stupid for Brady to be in there handing it off, then having Andrew Luck dropping back in the shotgun when the game is out of reach and you also still have playoff ambitions is, I would think, far more stupid.

                              Gronk was on the point-after-touchdown unit because that unit practices together, and even though his day was done on offense, not one coach in the league, to my knowledge, makes personnel changes in that unit based on game score. The risk of making such a change would be to mess up the blocking scheme (which is a cohesive rather than an individual effort). The most likely player to get injured on a PAT is the kicker, from a blocked kick. To prevent this, every coach (including Belichick, including Tony Dungy, and including every coach in the NFL) sends out the guys who are on that unit, unless a player has been knocked out of the game.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 11-20-2012, 06:36 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: Colts/Pats --- here we go again

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                My take on the outcome of this game, btw:

                                I'm not taking a whole lot from it. There were some freak things that occurred that completely changed momentum. We're a young team, and games like this are gonig to happen. I know Indy can play better. You're not going to give up two pick-sixes and a kickoff return for a TD very often, especially in one game. When those happened, we were still very much in the game and actually came out and took a quick lead. The wheels fell off a bit. Happens.

                                I have a feeling the next time these teams meet, the outcome won't be so lopsided. Oh, and having their starters in there so late in the game was pretty f'n stupid. Gronk aside, why are they risking anyone with 5 mins left being up 4 touchdowns?
                                I'm making excuses for why we lost. Our receivers dropped way too many of Luck's perfectly thrown passes. One pass hit Allen directly in the hands. These drops are just as bad as turnovers. How is Luck supposed to stay poised when his receivers drop easy passes
                                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X