Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

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

  • #16
    Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I'm really not disagreeing with what you're saying. I know that the QB isn't the sole factor. But Manning gets all of the accolades when his teams succeed in the regular season, so it's only fair that he gets some of the blame for disappointing postseason play. Sure, the Jacoby Jones situation was a lapse, but you also have to remember that Manning got 14 points from Special Teams returns in that game.

    Brady hasn't been very impressive in the playoffs in recent years, but he will always have the 5 Super Bowl appearances and 3 rings. He played a major factor in all of that.

    What Manning's legacy really needed was that Super Bowl win against an elite QB in Brees. No one would have ever again questioned his playoff resume'.

    But that's the thing you can't control who you play in the SB.. you play who's in front of you and for one season he did that and beat them all.

    Call me crazy but I would think winning the SB is enough regardless of opponent I'm sure Dan Marino and Jim Kelly would feel the same.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      Irsay just came out and said he considers the Manning era slightly disappointing. I agree totally and so does 79% on an ESPN nationwide poll. 7 first round exits during the Manning years. 9-11 playoff record. It boggles the mind. I know it's not ALL on Manning, but I could tell from body language alone that Manning was not as confident in the playoffs. Great regular season QB though. Maybe the best.

      Yes it was a very underachieving era I've said that many times but Irsay also needs to STFU considering that he was the one who hired the personnel to build such a flawed concept to begin with a team built for regular season and not the postseason. I mean he's the owner he should've seen that long before now. To even say Manning bears most of the blame for it is rather disrespectful and ungrateful on his end considering he was going to bolt out of Indy with the Colts years ago.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

        Almost none of it is on Manning, at least for the post-Super Bowl XLI games. The rest go on people like Marvin Harrison, injuries to Freeney and Mathis, Kenton Keith, Gijon Robinson, Mike Scrifes, Billy Volek, Pierre Garcon, Hank Baskett, Drew Brees, Tim Jennings, Jim Caldwell, kick coverage teams, and Rahim Moore. Manning is an above average playoff performer as the stats would suggest. He has just had terrible luck and bad timing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

          You have to remember that Vegas odds aren't really based on who they think has the best odds to win. They are based on which odds for which teams and games will make the most bettors bet and potentially make their books the most money. Vegas wins more often than not or they would have stopped making sports books a long time ago...
          Last edited by travmil; 07-29-2013, 10:43 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

            http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/...vorites/24120/

            For the first time since midsummer, the Las Vegas Hotel sports book has not listed the Broncos as the favorite to win the Super Bowl.

            The Seattle Seahawks are now the favorites with 3-to-2 odds to win Super Bowl XLVIII. The Broncos are second with 5-to-2 odds. The Broncos were listed as the prohibitive favorites from training camp until two weeks ago, when they became co-favorites with the Seattle Seahawks. Now the 12-2 Seahawks are the favorites to win the Super Bowl in New jersey on Feb. 2.

            “There are three factors that led to the odds change,” said Jay Kornegay, sports director for the LVH super book. “One, the offense didn’t play that well against San Diego. Two, the defense is concerning. And three, Seattle has consistently played well.”

            The San Francisco 49ers are a distant third with 8-to-1 odds, followed by New England (12-to-1), New Orleans (12-to-1), Cincinnati (12-to-1) and Carolina (12-to-1).

            Surprisingly, Kansas City (16-to-1) and Indianapolis (30-to-1) are not getting much love even though they are the only teams besides Seattle and Denver to have clinched a playoff berth.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

              I don't think it is a stretch to say Denver is the favorite. Seattle is not quite the same away from home, and everyone else is meh.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                While I think a QB winning an SB is significant I never bought that as a determining factor in whether a QB is great or not either.
                I don't disagree with you, but 90% of the pundits do. Reminds me of lunch-break conversations with people whom were born-and-raised here in the heartland, and didn't like Peyton because (at that time) he didn't win

                But on the flip side, I felt it was strickly HIS fault we failed against New Orleans in the Super Bowl. Some people may disagree, but I put that loss 60-85% on Peyton

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                  Originally posted by pogi View Post
                  I don't disagree with you, but 90% of the pundits do. Reminds me of lunch-break conversations with people whom were born-and-raised here in the heartland, and didn't like Peyton because (at that time) he didn't win

                  But on the flip side, I felt it was strickly HIS fault we failed against New Orleans in the Super Bowl. Some people may disagree, but I put that loss 60-85% on Peyton
                  And yet you agree with the pundits apparently.

                  He's partly to blame but I fail to see how it was all his fault that that the defense couldn't stop Drew Brees or the failed coverage on the onside kick. We played not to lose the Saints played to win therefore they did. Conservative playcalling gets you everytime.

                  As much as that loss sucked it was probably for the best long term for the Colts otherwise we'd have been stuck with Caldwell/Polian even longer.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                    Originally posted by pogi View Post
                    I don't disagree with you, but 90% of the pundits do. Reminds me of lunch-break conversations with people whom were born-and-raised here in the heartland, and didn't like Peyton because (at that time) he didn't win

                    But on the flip side, I felt it was strickly HIS fault we failed against New Orleans in the Super Bowl. Some people may disagree, but I put that loss 60-85% on Peyton
                    I can see the Peyton blame for the Saints game on first glance. 17 points against the Saints D that was not the strength of their team is not a great result for a hall of fame QB. Then of course you add in the pick 6, and I can see why some would blame Peyton.

                    When looking at it a little further though, I think Peyton is much less to blame. The Colts only had 8 drives in that entire game. That is really low for an NFL game. The average starting field position for the Colts was the 16.625 yard line which is awful. Garcon dropped a very easy catch on 3rd down that killed one possession, they got stuffed running the ball on 3rd and 1 on a drive that started at their own 1, and they missed a long field goal.

                    Manning played well the vast majority of that game. He did make the one huge mistake, and the Colts did have to settle for field goals in a couple of places so I wouldn't put the game on his highlight reel, but I wouldn't really blame him either. It really was a game that went true to form. Both offenses dominated like everyone expected, and it came down to who could come up with the one key special teams/defense play. The Saints ended up making both of them (the onside kick, the pick 6) and that won them the game. The point totals weren't that high, but that's only because both teams were going on long drive after long drive.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                      In that Super Bowl, we were just unfortunate to play against maybe the only head coach in the NFL who would have the stones to onside kick it in the Super Bowl. Sucks.

                      Garcon drop was obviously brutal.

                      Manning pick 6 is painful to watch when you see Collie WIDE OPEN for a first down.

                      To put it bluntly, it was just a hideous night.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        And yet you agree with the pundits apparently.

                        He's partly to blame but I fail to see how it was all his fault that that the defense couldn't stop Drew Brees or the failed coverage on the onside kick. We played not to lose the Saints played to win therefore they did. Conservative playcalling gets you everytime.

                        As much as that loss sucked it was probably for the best long term for the Colts otherwise we'd have been stuck with Caldwell/Polian even longer.
                        How does giving my opinion that he was largely at fault for that superbowl equate to agreeing with the pundits that everything is superbowl or bust for individual accomplishment? Also, I didn't say it was solely on Peyton alone, but I'll argue that a majority of the blame should go to him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                          I don't know what percentage of blame to lay on him, but he was certainly outplayed by Brees.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-17-2013, 05:00 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                            Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                            I can see the Peyton blame for the Saints game on first glance. 17 points against the Saints D that was not the strength of their team is not a great result for a hall of fame QB. Then of course you add in the pick 6, and I can see why some would blame Peyton.

                            When looking at it a little further though, I think Peyton is much less to blame. The Colts only had 8 drives in that entire game. That is really low for an NFL game. The average starting field position for the Colts was the 16.625 yard line which is awful. Garcon dropped a very easy catch on 3rd down that killed one possession, they got stuffed running the ball on 3rd and 1 on a drive that started at their own 1, and they missed a long field goal.

                            Manning played well the vast majority of that game. He did make the one huge mistake, and the Colts did have to settle for field goals in a couple of places so I wouldn't put the game on his highlight reel, but I wouldn't really blame him either. It really was a game that went true to form. Both offenses dominated like everyone expected, and it came down to who could come up with the one key special teams/defense play. The Saints ended up making both of them (the onside kick, the pick 6) and that won them the game. The point totals weren't that high, but that's only because both teams were going on long drive after long drive.
                            Those aspects of the game were certainly important, but it also came down to who could come up with the one key offensive drive at the end of the game. With the score tied at 17 late in the fourth quarter, Brees drove his team down the field to take a 24-17 lead and put the pressure on the Colts. When attempting to tie the game on the following possession, Manning made the costly pick six. The Saints' offense was able to come up with a crucial drive in crunch time. The Colts were not. So basically, the Saints trumped us in all three aspects of the game in the second half.

                            I don't put as much blame on Manning for the loss as pogi does. That being said, 17 points in 8 offensive possessions still isn't very much. There were certainly plenty of factors for that outside of Manning: Garcon drop, missed FG, stuffed on 3rd and 1, etc. But when the game was on the line in the fourth quarter, the Saints' offense came up with a clutch drive while ours threw a pick 6. There were a ton of factors that went into us losing that game, but Brees outplaying Manning in crunch time was certainly one of the big ones. Manning definitely didn't play that bad or anything, but at the end of the day he was outplayed by the opposing quarterback.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-17-2013, 11:22 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                              Originally posted by pogi View Post
                              How does giving my opinion that he was largely at fault for that superbowl equate to agreeing with the pundits that everything is superbowl or bust for individual accomplishment? Also, I didn't say it was solely on Peyton alone, but I'll argue that a majority of the blame should go to him.
                              Originally posted by pogi View Post

                              But on the flip side, I felt it was strickly HIS fault we failed against New Orleans in the Super Bowl.
                              You said he was strictly at fault so how is that not sole blame?

                              Not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion but yes you are solely blaming him. What else is anyone supposed to think here?

                              I mean which is it? And yes you would agree with the pundits here because he was solely blamed for that SB loss.

                              Besides anyone who lets pundits dictate what they think of a player and how good they are don't really have minds of their own to see for themselves. Its like saying Marino was a crap QB because he never won an SB which is crap but pundits will say how disappointing he was for it got to keep that narrative going. Like Brady being clutch and always winning even though he hasn't won an SB in nearly a decade but he has 3 rings so he can coast on past reputation. (this last part isn't so much directed at you just a general observation on my part)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Broncos Odds On Favorite By Vegas. Really???

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                You said he was strictly at fault so how is that not sole blame?
                                My bad...I didn't realize I worded it like that til after I've read it....

                                But I still feel that a majority of blame should go his way. Not all, but alot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X