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

Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

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

  • #16
    Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    And take away at least one of Wilson's TDs to the Fail Mary.
    And also take away one of his wins, making the team 10-6 and therefore no playoffs. The Bears would have made the playoffs had Seattle finished 10-6.

    You don't always need to lead your team to the playoffs to be in the RoY discussion but this isn't an ordinary year with Griffin and Luck. If that call was made correctly and Seattle missed the playoffs, no way would Russell Wilson even be mentioned for RoY.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

      Originally posted by travmil View Post
      And also take away one of his wins, making the team 10-6 and therefore no playoffs. The Bears would have made the playoffs had Seattle finished 10-6.

      You don't always need to lead your team to the playoffs to be in the RoY discussion but this isn't an ordinary year with Griffin and Luck. If that call was made correctly and Seattle missed the playoffs, no way would Russell Wilson even be mentioned for RoY.
      Seattle would have made the playoffs at 10-6. They beat both Minnesota and Chicago (technically all they would have needed was Minnesota since divisional ties are broken first), so they would have won the tiebreaker and still been the #5 seed.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        That's fine, and voice your opinion all you want, just be aware that most people on a Colts forum are going to disagree with you. Like me. Wilson didn't have near the mountain to climb that Luck did, had way more team around him, and still didn't produce any more. And take away at least one of Wilson's TDs to the Fail Mary.

        He had a tremendous year, even more so than Bob Griffin. Just wasn't as good as Luck's.
        Pacers Forum, and to me it does not matter where it is like I said, not biased, I just go off what I see in performances.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          I just dont agree with your logic at all. Im not gonna hold a players team against him that isn't fair to the player. That would be like saying Larry Bird was only a good player because he played with so many HOFers Bird couldnt control who he played with same with Russ. So should LBJ not be able to win MVP because he plays with Wade? lol. Should Miguel Cabera not win MVP because he had Prince Fielder hitting behind him? I mean that logic is so flawed IMO.


          Russel has thown 26TDs (rookie record) and 100 QB rating I mean I dont know what else to say he does what his team needs to win. Again I hate debating the running game when it comes to Russ and RG the both help their teams with their legs which helps open up the running game. But no debate Lynch is a beast.

          If you keep making the argument Luck did more with less who is to say you put Russ on the Colts and playing from behind he wouldn't have just as many yards as Luck. That is why the yards thing for me is flawed. I look at the body of work and Russ has been the best offensive rookie this year IMO and saying it's a nonsense argument to make is well... nonsense.
          This is my take on that, It does matter who you are surrounded by and what you do with that team, Bird, LBJ whoever, the thing to remember though is that those guys just put up ridiculous stats as well to separate themselves, just because you have good players around you you still have to show up very big and that is what they did.

          Running from the case about running backs it is easier to see why you would go Wilson over Luck, but if you really want to look at a situation you have to take that into consideration, Luck also runs the ball and helps his team, but having a dominate running game like #1 in the NFL really really really helps and that is just a fact.

          And if you put Wilson on the Colts and he did what Luck did then yeah he would have deserved the ROY but he didn't.

          But I will use my logic and you can use yours, I try to look at the whole picture, team, situation, responsibility, results, everything if I don't I feel like I am doing a disservice to the process.

          As far as who will be the best at the end of the day, I really don't know that is up for debate for me.
          Why so SERIOUS

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

            Cast my vote for Robert Griffin.

            Though the last 6-7 games Morris gave him a huge run for this money.

            I also laugh at anyone in here claiming to not be biased. Including myself. Whatever helps you sleep at night though

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

              I tried to determine if I was biased once. I couldn't trust it though because I might be biased.
              DG for 3

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                Cast my vote for Robert Griffin.

                Though the last 6-7 games Morris gave him a huge run for this money.

                I also laugh at anyone in here claiming to not be biased. Including myself. Whatever helps you sleep at night though
                Why do you laugh? you can look at my previous post criticizing Luck, it is possible to be a fan and also analyze these player games.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  Why do you laugh? you can look at my previous post criticizing Luck, it is possible to be a fan and also analyze these player games.
                  No offense intended, I just think that this site (like many others) of sports teams tends to bring people together who have strong, loyal ties to their respective organizations. I have seen fans come in and not show much bias, but that is few and far between.

                  Frankly I have just happy when people make educated posts and dont resort to name calling and trolling in the hopes of getting attention. That and those who respect the opinions of everyone, regardless of age, sex, or team affiliation

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                    Cast my vote for Robert Griffin.

                    Though the last 6-7 games Morris gave him a huge run for this money.

                    I also laugh at anyone in here claiming to not be biased. Including myself. Whatever helps you sleep at night though
                    Also not about sleep, but about letting you know where my opinion lies, have criticized all 3 for what they do bad, and praised for things they have done good.

                    I've got on Kid for his views on Luck being what I felt was closed minded with respect to the RGIII vs Luck vs Wilson conversation
                    Why so SERIOUS

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Really? View Post
                      Pacers Forum, and to me it does not matter where it is like I said, not biased, I just go off what I see in performances.
                      No this is a Colt forum. It's on a Pacer site, but this sub-forum is Colt-specific.

                      The "bias" issue needs to die. It's a Colt and Pacer forum, of course there's bias, just like va is clearly biased towards the skins. I don't have issue with a fan being biased.

                      Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-05-2013, 08:28 PM.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

                        It doesn't matter what Luck had or didn't have at his disposal. It matters what kind of stats he put up. RGIII put up great stats. I fully expect that Luck in the long term will close the gap or be even better than RG but ROY goes to one of the other two. I will trade two wins in the playoffs for the ROY any day.

                        We beat the team that just beat the Bengals. I'm excited about tomorrow.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by vapacersfan
                          Yeah, or people can talk about whatever they please.

                          Bias is a real issue, and one that should not be ignored.

                          That said, its obvious there is a Pacers and Colts bias here. Which is pretty much what I said originally.

                          There is no harm in stating the obvious, even if people dont like hearing they are being biased irrational fans.
                          Dude, wtf? So because I root for the Colts and I have firm argument to believe that Luck has been the best rookie, that makes me a biased irrational fan? And you aren't?

                          I have never gone overboard in my support of Luck. I've said from the beginning that he's the best player in my mind, it's why he went #1 and he's done nothing to prove my regard otherwise. Ive given the other props, but I can't honestly sit here and say they are better because I dont believe it. I've been watching the NFL for 20+ years, and I know what I value in a bluechip prospect. Luck is it. I'd still recognize that fact even if I was a fan of another team. Just because my team drafted the player that I easily recognize as the best overall player doesnt make me biased. It makes me a fan of football and the Colts who just so happens to be a fan of the team that drafted who I felt was the best player.

                          Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by vapacersfan
                            I feel like I have already explained myself 10 times in this thread.

                            Yes, you are a biased fan. Yes, from my experience you are irrational at times and stick to your guns that you are the only one who knows what you are talking about and 100% correct.

                            But guess what, so are MOST fanatics. Hence why I said those who post here (or similar sites) are all biased.

                            I am not sure I can make that more clear....

                            PS. The comment you have never gone overboard in your support of Luck is laughable. Which is whatever. But ima calla spade a spade. And congrats on watching the NFL for 20+ years. I just turned 27, so I can almost say I have been watching the NFL for 30 years.

                            PPS. The part I bolded makes my point for me. Thank you
                            Wow you went from good poster to jackass quickly. O_O

                            And Ive been WATCHING for 20+, not from the day I was born. I'm a lot older than you.

                            Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by vapacersfan
                              Truth hurts........
                              Not really, I'm still the same old Kid Minny, despite the awesome wisdom your unbiased posts are inflicting upon me, lol.... gotta be kiddin me.

                              Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
                              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


                              • #30
                                Re: Vote for Luck - Rookie of the Year

                                I don't know why you're comparing age. I simply said I've been watching for 20 years and I'm basing my opinion off of what I've gathered from watching during that 20 years to determine that Luck possesses the traits that I recognize as top-flight.

                                You seem to be like... competing with me or something. I don't give a ***** if I'm older than you, you were just like "OOOH check me out i'm 27 so I've been watching longer than you."

                                What the heck happened to you, I started a vote for Luck thread and you come riding in on your high horse calling all of us biased homer fans.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X