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

2013 non-Colts thread

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

  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

    Sollozzo,

    Romo snuck bad on the field that last drive. I can't believe Jerry let him play with his bad back and all!

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      I know it ended up not being a factor since Dallas ended up scoring a touchdown on that drive, but the NFL better give an explanation as to why the play clock immediately went from 40 to 25 after that Witten first down. That was absolutely horrid. Completely embarrassing with the whole country watching.
      Who runs the clock in the NFL? Is it the stadium crew like it is for the NBA?

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

        That is one sexy looking dude behind him lol.
        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

        ----------------- Reggie Miller

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

          I hate the Eagles, but I have to give props where they are due. Congrats on a great season and winning the NFCE

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            Who runs the clock in the NFL? Is it the stadium crew like it is for the NBA?
            I've always thought it was the officials:

            The stadium game clock is official. In case it stops or is operating incorrectly, the Line Judge takes over the official timing on the field.
            Each period is 15 minutes. The intermission between the periods is two minutes. Halftime is 12 minutes, unless otherwise specified.
            On charged team time outs, the Field Judge starts watch and blows whistle after 1 minute 50 seconds, unless television does not utilize the time for commercial. In this case the length of the time out is reduced to 40 seconds.
            The Referee will allow necessary time to attend to an injured player, or repair a legal player’s equipment.
            Each team is allowed three time outs each half.
            Time between plays will be 40 seconds from the end of a given play until the snap of the ball for the next play, or a 25-second interval after certain administrative stoppages and game delays.


            http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/timing

            Now there was obviously no "administrative stoppage" or "game delay" after that first down, but I wonder if an official simply accidentally clicked 25 seconds instead of 40?

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

              Steelers, Cowboys and Bears all miss the playoffs…good to have three of the most annoying fanbases in the NFL put aside until next year.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                3 players in NFL history have rushed for 180+ and returned for 100+ in the same game.

                Gayle Sayers, Adrian Peterson, and... LaGarette Blount?


                334 all-purpose yards (189 rushing, 145 on kickoff returns).
                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: 2013 non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  The hype would be surreal, but it would be a pretty damn big deal. Manning vs. Luck with a trip to the AFC Title game on the line? Manning trying not to go 0-2 against Luck and get eliminated by the guy who took his job? Either Manning would get "revenge" against the Colts or he would be completely owned by his young Indy successor. The hype would be nauseating, but it would just be way too big not to hype.

                  I'm getting way ahead of myself here, but can you image just how badly Manning's 55 TD would be ruined if he went one and done against his old team? Again, I'm getting way ahead of myself here, but it's impossible not to think about at this point.

                  Its already worthless to begin with because its a regular season record(which will be eclipsed in a few years in today's pass happy NFL) it has no bearing on the postseason. Nothing he did in the regular season does other than Denver won enough games to get Home Field Advantage. That's it.

                  But I don't think Denver is going to win anything this year whether its the Colts who end their season or not the team just isn't that impressive.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    Its already worthless to begin with because its a regular season record(which will be eclipsed in a few years in today's pass happy NFL) it has no bearing on the postseason. Nothing he did in the regular season does other than Denver won enough games to get Home Field Advantage. That's it.

                    But I don't think Denver is going to win anything this year whether its the Colts who end their season or not the team just isn't that impressive.

                    It definitely matters. If Peyton wins the Super Bowl, then that plus the 55 TDs would mean that he had the greatest QB season in NFL history. It wouldn't even be debatable.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      It definitely matters. If Peyton wins the Super Bowl, then that plus the 55 TDs would mean that he had the greatest QB season in NFL history. It wouldn't even be debatable.

                      No it wouldn't winning the SB period is a far bigger deal than any records (which he has many of) however winning the SB is dependent on well the actual team itself. A QB can only go so far. Look at Marino had a lot of great QB seasons with records never won an SB and now he doesn't have those records either.

                      Doesn't mean as much as it used to(if it ever did).

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        No it wouldn't winning the SB period is a far bigger deal than any records (which he has many of) however winning the SB is dependent on well the actual team itself. A QB can only go so far. Look at Marino had a lot of great QB seasons with records never won an SB and now he doesn't have those records either.

                        Doesn't mean as much as it used to(if it ever did).
                        Of course winning a Super Bowl is a bigger deal than the records. But a quarterback wins the Super Bowl every single season. However, a quarterback breaking the single season touchdown AND yard record in the SAME season is a once in a blue moon event. If you combine that with a Super Bowl championship, then it's easily the greatest quarterback season ever, no questions asked. I'm not trying to say that the records are more important than the Super Bowl. Obviously the Super Bowl is more important. All I'm saying is that the COMBO of the two would easily make it the greatest QB season in NFL history. Also, I'm sure that Peyton would jump to the top of a lot of GOAT rankings.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                          GOAT rankings? There's no such thing as the GOAT its not something people wants to hear but there's always going to be someone better and then you factor in different eras.

                          If the Broncos manage to win another SB. It won't change anything they will come up with some other lame narrative of how he can't do (insert something lame) this. Even though that have been great QBs that have never won anything but that doesn't get brought up go figure.

                          Its something to talk about because you know drama sells.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                            Something needs to be done about the officiating in general its starting to come across like the NBA these days where we talk about this instead of the games.

                            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...into-playoffs/

                            Chiefs should have gotten another chance to boot Steelers into playoffs

                            Posted by Mike Florio on December 30, 2013, 12:18 AM EST
                            Chiefs
                            At a time when plenty of Steelers fans are griping about the decision to wipe what would have been a game-clinching fumble return off the scoreboard in overtime of the contest between the Chiefs-Chargers, all Steelers fans should be complaining about the failure of the officials to miss a blatant foul as the Chiefs tried to win in regulation.

                            As kicker Ryan Succop lined up on the right hash mark to try a 41-yard field goal with eight seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, seven Chargers positioned themselves on the line of scrimmage to the left of the long snapper. But a new provision added this year by the NFL to Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3 states that “[n]o more than six Team B players may be on the line of scrimmage on either side of the snapper at the snap” when Team A lines up in a conventional field goal formation.

                            Per a league source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL believes a flag should have been thrown. The league office could acknowledge the error publicly as soon as Monday.

                            The seven Chargers lined up to the left of the Chiefs snapper in plain view of at least two members of referee Bill Leavy’s crew. If the officials had called a penalty for illegal formation, the Chiefs would have had another chance to make what would have been the game-winning kick.

                            Succop’s shot at immediate redemption would have come from 36 yards out, with four seconds on the clock. If good, the Chargers most likely would have had no time left for a Stanford-band attempt to win the game.

                            While it’s impossible to know whether Succop would have made his Mulligan, the point is that he should have had a second chance, due to the San Diego penalty that somehow wasn’t called. If Succop had converted, the Steelers would be celebrating one of the most unlikely playoff berths in franchise history, courtesy of Week 17 losses by the Ravens, Dolphins, and Chargers.

                            Instead, Steelers fans will spend the offseason wondering whether their team could have replicated what the Steelers accomplished in 2005, when Pittsburgh parlayed the No. 6 seed into the long-coveted One for the Thumb.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                              They should bring back the replacement refs.

                              - The hideous picked up flag on the PI against Gronk.
                              - Giving the Benglas that touchdown against the Colts.
                              - The play clock last night immediately going from 40 to 25. Cowboys get a 5 yard penalty. No one except Michaels and Collinsworth realizes it.
                              - Not calling a penalty on the Chargers yesterday. Suckkop should have gotten another chance.


                              These are just four quick examples off the top of my head. Just a fraction of the bad calls this year.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-30-2013, 11:07 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                                Does Ed Werder have his own bed at Cowboys headquarters?

                                Yeah yeah yeah, the team that has been the epitome of mediocrity in recent years lost again. Next story please, preferably one that concerns a team in the playoffs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X