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

    All the tweets leading to the above:

    Adam Jacobi ‏@Adam_Jacobi 11h

    "Colonel Joseph R. Philbin, Commanding Officer, National Football League, Miami, Florida."

    "Have you ever spent time on a football team, son? Ever served on an offensive line?"

    "Ever put your block in another lineman's hands, ask him to put his block in yours? We run plays, son. We run plays or people get sacked."

    "Son, we live in a world that has offensive lines, and those lines have to be filled by 350-pound men with helmets. Who's gonna do it? You?"

    " I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Martin, and you curse the Dolphins' o-line. You have that luxury."

    "You have the luxury of not knowing what coaches know. That Martin's departure, while tragic, probably saved Ryan Tannehill's life."

    "And Richie Incognito's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves quarterbacks' lives."

    "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about on Twitter, you want him on that line. YOU NEED HIM ON THAT LINE."

    "We use words like shiver, rip technique, smash. We use those words as a backbone of a life spent defending quarterbacks."

    "You use them as a comment on Pro Football Talk."

    "I have neither the TIME nor the INCLINATION to EXPLAIN MYSELF to a man who rises and sleeps under the fandom of the very team I coach..."

    "...and then *****es on Twitter about the way I provide it."

    "I would rather you just said "thank you" and bought a season ticket."

    "Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a helmet, and stand at left tackle."

    "Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you football fans think you're entitled to."

    "*Did you order the code red?* YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT I DID! - Joe Philbin"

    Never forget

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

      Apparently, Roy Hibbert now plays for the New York Jets.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

        So, Martin starts dealing with this guy, probably tells him to cool it. When that doesn't work, he goes to his coaches......who ordered the guy to treat him that way. When he gets no traction there what's his last option? There's not a single person anywhere saying he should have stood up for himself that would tolerate being treated like that. Not one. They should all shut the hell up.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

          My stance on it all:

          So... as crazy as this sounds, and I'm not saying I agree with this, but trying to understand it.... I think the basis of hazing/initiating is the "ends justify the means". The means would be poor treatment. The ends would be a tougher individual and closer relationship (once everyone makes up).

          That said... if what you're trying for is a tougher individual... and a tighter relationship, there's much better ways to go about it. There are "leaders" out there who motivate by fear... and others by respect. People work their hardest alongside you and for you when they respect you and like you and have a true desire to be the best they can be. People will not work as hard for you when they fear you... they'll just work as hard as necessary to appease you, but not necessarily their hardest.

          There are ways to convey/instill toughness in someone without beating the crap out of them. If I had to guess... and from what I'm hearing... Incognito was tasked with toughening up Martin. The problem was the method he chose to enact it.

          In no normal working situation does anyone have to accept that kind of treatment. I know that the NFL is no normal working situation. But still... if one of my co-workers tried taht ******** with me, there would be the following process:

          1) Take it... in a very limited manner. Sometimes people have a bad day. I will remember it and monitor you though to see if you continue it.
          2) Once it went past my rather low threshold, I'd have a discussion with them, telling them it's not something I approve of and it's not to continue.
          3) If no change, take it to superiors.
          4) if no change, walk away. Better I walk away and let it go than stay there and do something that I can't foresee, but like any grown male, there are limits before you just pop.

          Getting into a physical altercation is just stupid. It's not an option. It's nothing to do with manliness, it's just stupidity. I don't really have a problem with the way Martin went about it. Some may view it as not being strong; I look at it as "I don't really have to deal with this **** from a dipstick like yourself, and I'm gonna walk away before you really **** me off." Incognito, on the other hand, just sounds like he's an idiot. No grown man conducts himself like that. You make a ton of money to be a professional. You cannot even tell me that voicemail is an example of professionalism.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 11-06-2013, 01:32 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


          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

            That's not the way to toughen somebody up. That's the way to tear them down. I mean.....even insulting his mother.....please. Some guys just by their personality can't just let comments and actions like these just bounce right off. They carry it around with them and it ultimately affects their self worth. Some people are just more sensitive than others. Doesn't matter what size they are.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

              http://deadspin.com/richie-incognito...eng-1447347182

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                Regarding the dolphins situation...

                1. Love all the arm-chair psychology occurring...
                2. You don't screw around with crazy. And Incognito seems to be that way.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                  Now it's coming out that the Dolphins GM advised Martin to punch Incognito. Wow. Wonder if this will cost the GM his job?

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                    So no RB is averaging 100ypg this year. No one is that close either honestly. LeSean McCoy leads the league in rushing with 777 yards on the season which is 86.3 ypg. AP is highest ypg at 88.9. If no one averages 100 ypg it will be the first time that has happened since 2007. Kinda crazy. Has the NFL just gotten that pass happy?

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                      That's not the way to toughen somebody up. That's the way to tear them down. I mean.....even insulting his mother.....please. Some guys just by their personality can't just let comments and actions like these just bounce right off. They carry it around with them and it ultimately affects their self worth. Some people are just more sensitive than others. Doesn't matter what size they are.
                      I wish I could thank it more than once. Some people are not thick skinned and could be bothered by something other wouldn't. Yet you will have some people saying "Ah he's soft, grow a pair" and other BS. Wake up, people are not all alike in their demeanor and character.

                      I understand that NFL locker rooms are not like any workplace but doesn't mean people who are more sensitive to some things will change and adjust accordingly.
                      Never forget

                      Comment


                      • Please excuse my off topic post for a bit and allow me to share my excitement for something. Look what was waiting for me today in my mail box:

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1383837433.366940.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	7.4 KB
ID:	3241208

                        The beast's jersey has finally arrived. Him, Reggie and Peyton are my favourite players from the Colts and pretty sure a certain #12 will be added soon enough
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Has the NFL just gotten that pass happy?
                          Lots of coaches are in love with the running back by committee approach, feeling that you are better off giving 3 guys 10 carries each than giving one guy 25 and another guy 5.

                          If the 25 carry guy stays healthy long enough, you will pay him a ransom, then he's likely to get hurt or decline. The 3 guys getting 10 carries each stay cheap and more likely stay healthy, and if not are replacable at a reasonable cost
                          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

                            And Incognito keeps looking worse and worse...


                            http://deadspin.com/richie-incognito...ium=socialflow

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...orary-captain/

                              T.O. returns to 49ers (as an honorary captain)

                              Posted by Mike Florio on November 8, 2013, 1:08 PM EST

                              Getty Images
                              The man who loves him some him apparently doesn’t hate the idea of returning to the 49ers this week in a capacity other than player.

                              The team has announced that Terrell Owens will return on Sunday against the Panthers as an honorary game captain to commemorate his game-winning touchdown catch in the 1998 wild-card playoffs against Green Bay.

                              That moment has been determined the No. 4 Moment in Candlestick Park history. The 49ers are counting down the top 10 moments throughout the 2013 season.

                              Owens has said that, if he doesn’t land with a team this year, he’ll retire. He also has called us the devil.

                              Which I like to mention whenever I can.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                                Bruce Arians has the Cardinals sitting at 5-4. They are tied for the amount of games they won last year.

                                This guy is just a fantastic coach, motivator, and teacher. He can flat out coach, no doubt about it. I think that the NFC is too deep for them to make the playoffs, but they certainly have a chance. I'm rooting for them to do well.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X