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

    Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
    Right now I would pick NE to go to the SB from the AFC

    Same. This would have been a convincing New England victory if it weren't for the rash of turnovers at the beginning of the game.

    Brady's arm strength at his age is super impressive. Throwing it against the wind didn't seem to bother him at all.

    I simply do not trust Peyton's arm in the playoffs. Denver kept running and running and running throughout this game. It certainly worked early, but Peyton's decision not to throw it much said a lot about the weather's effect on his arm strength. Denver's running attack got more predictable as the game went on and the Pats defended it better, which forced Manning to try to beat them with his arm. He simply didn't have it aside from that drive that resulted in the D. Thomas touchdown.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Manning had PLENTY of chances to put this game away. PLENTY.

      His arm is simply weak in this frigid weather. It is what it is.
      Poor play is excusable in my book. Not stupid plays

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

        Originally posted by Shade View Post
        Total Manning/Brady role-reversal tonight.

        Just tonight? Only a moron actually thought the Broncos were going to win tonight. It ends as it always does. Like I said it doesn't matter how the Panthers game ended because the Pats were going to win tonight and that game will be forgotten.

        Of course in the end the Broncos have breathing room because the Chiefs lost today and they are still a game ahead of the Pats.

        I also don't buy the whole Manning can't play in the cold because he's from the South. Explain Eli.

        Regardless its not as if the Broncos are impressive overall. If anything I think them not getting HFA is a good thing.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Manning is done. The score wasn't close because of anything Manning did. He's never been known for tight spirals, but he was throwing serious wounded ducks tonight. And the stuff he threw long was just floated and usually should've been intercepted. I don't think the wind was the biggest factor in that. Those passes didn't sail... they just wobbled and fluttered. They nearly all wobbled and fluttered.

          Yes, he was great to start the season but I think the arm wears down (aka the nerve issue resurfaces) as the season wears on. I think it's showing up this season earlier than last. And defenses can just dare him to float those pseudo long passes that give defenders a chance to adjust and pick them off.
          I think I've watched basically every Denver game this year, and I've noticed a noticeable decline in the strength of his already-weak-to-begin-with-arm ever since the Mathis hit.

          I own both Manning and Eric Decker in fantasy, so naturally I always look for Decker. Up through the Colts game, Decker was having a pretty damn good season. But since then, he hasn't done very much. Well, Decker's primary skill is being a deep threat. It's no coincidence that Decker's numbers have dipped since the Colts game. Manning's arm simply hasn't been good enough to get him the ball. It all goes back to Mathis getting that hit on his arm, IMO.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I think I've watched basically every Denver game this year, and I've noticed a noticeable decline in the strength of his already-weak-to-begin-with-arm ever since the Mathis hit.

            I own both Manning and Eric Decker in fantasy, so naturally I always look for Decker. Up through the Colts game, Decker was having a pretty damn good season. But since then, he hasn't done very much. Well, Decker's primary skill is being a deep threat. It's no coincidence that Decker's numbers have dipped since the Colts game. Manning's arm simply hasn't been good enough to get him the ball.
            What do you expect hes playing on two bad ankles?

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              This game was served to Denver on a silver platter, but Manning simply didn't have the arm to put the game away. This is why this Bronco team can simply not be trusted in the playoffs. Even if they get home field, they will have to win two games in cold Denver and then win a Super Bowl in frigid New Jersey. I will be surprised if they win it all.
              They won't I was surprised they were even favored in this game I mean really Del Rio is a coach here does anyone think he'd outsmart Belichick. If the game was in Denver yes I'd probably have picked the Broncos but its in New England. Its always there.

              As I said when the Pats let Welker go it wasn't going to hurt them in the end.

              They're better off without him.
              Last edited by Basketball Fan; 11-25-2013, 01:45 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                What do you expect hes playing on two bad ankles?

                Right. He's all dinged up now. It's unlikely he will ever make it through another season without getting dinged up this late in the season.

                I know his wheels are beat up, but that arm just looks weak. There were wounded ducks all over the place.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                  Well, I don't see how Denver and NE don't play each other in the playoffs, so Denver will get a chance to get back. What a ****** way to lose the game.

                  It will end the same in these Manning/Brady matchups in the regular season its just a preview of how it ends in the postseason

                  2003 Brady

                  2004 Brady

                  2006 Manning

                  2013 if it happens will be no different.


                  That being said the media will genuflect over Brady so between that and the Colts epic fail I can at least ignore the sports shows for the next few days.

                  Fortunately for Denver its only a regular season game they live to see another day and are still on top of the division and AFC not sure if that's a good thing though
                  Last edited by Basketball Fan; 11-25-2013, 02:20 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                    The funny thing about last night, I missed the entire first half. My daughter performed in an orchestra concert and we returned just before the second half kickoff. I did listen to most of the first half on the drive home on the car radio.

                    People can't overemphasize that third quarter performance.

                    With the score 24-0, the D wasn't going to respect the run. So you have to sling it, into a 20-25 mph wind. To throw for over 200 yards in the quarter under those conditions is something rarely seen. I know not to ever give up, but I tell you what, while I wanted to get home ASAP to see the second half, I wasn't sure that I would be watching very long.


                    Taking the wind in OT was a ballsy choice.

                    Another ballsy call that is overlooked:


                    In OT, 3rd and 4 at NE 48, Manning complete to Tamme for 3 yards. PENALTY on DEN-E.Decker, Offensive Pass Interference


                    Do you decline and face 4th and 1 at the 45?
                    Do you accept and give them another 3rd down play, 3rd and 14?


                    Well, with the way PM was throwing, you take your chances on 3rd and 14 and don't risk having to stop Moreno from getting one tough yard on 4th down, if Del Rio would have had the balls to do that.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 11-25-2013, 09:37 AM.
                    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

                      The injuries to Cutler and Rodgers basically served the NFC North to the Lions on a silver platter, yet they still can't capitalize. They blew that game in Pitt last week and lost to the freaking Bucs at home yesterday. Unbelievable.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                        It seems nobody wants to win the NFC North.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                          The Pats did a great job of taking away those screen passes that Denver has burned people with all year. You know, those little 5 yard throws that D. Thomas or Welker turn into a 20 yard gain. They dared Manning to beat them with his arm and were more than willing to give him the run. They took away the offense's bread and butter, which is the screen passes.

                          I've watched Peyton for a long time, and I don't think I've ever seen him look so scared to throw the ball. Sure Moreno definitely needed to be heavily involved since he was running so well, but it seemed as if they were running on virtually every play for a huge chunk of this game, especially when they had the opportunity to really step on the Pats' throats after taking the big lead. It just seemed as if Manning's swagger and confidence were MIA last night. The few longer throws he had last night were mostly ugly wobbly ducks. If I were a Denver fan, I'd be very concerned. This team is going to have to win a championship while likely playing exclusively in cold weather playoff games. Even the Super Bowl will be in frigid weather.

                          I don't think it would be possible for an NFL quarterback to have less arm strength than Peyton had last night.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            The Pats did a great job of taking away those screen passes that Denver has burned people with all year. You know, those little 5 yard throws that D. Thomas or Welker turn into a 20 yard gain. They dared Manning to beat them with his arm and were more than willing to give him the run. They took away the offense's bread and butter, which is the screen passes.

                            I've watched Peyton for a long time, and I don't think I've ever seen him look so scared to throw the ball. Sure Moreno definitely needed to be heavily involved since he was running so well, but it seemed as if they were running on virtually every play for a huge chunk of this game, especially when they had the opportunity to really step on the Pats' throats after taking the big lead. It just seemed as if Manning's swagger and confidence were MIA last night. The few longer throws he had last night were mostly ugly wobbly ducks. If I were a Denver fan, I'd be very concerned. This team is going to have to win a championship while likely playing exclusively in cold weather playoff games. Even the Super Bowl will be in frigid weather.

                            I don't think it would be possible for an NFL quarterback to have less arm strength than Peyton had last night.

                            Weather is rather unpredictable I mean it was in the 60s when we had the SB (course the game was indoors) and then you had Dallas with an ice storm the year before.

                            You never know we could end up having a heatwave.

                            That being said the Broncos aren't going to the SB and its not so much the weather as it is everything else about this team. People forget that they actually were good the first half of the game and then it fell apart.

                            They really needed Julius Thomas more than Welker who was better off sitting out this game.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Weather is rather unpredictable I mean it was in the 60s when we had the SB (course the game was indoors) and then you had Dallas with an ice storm the year before.

                              You never know we could end up having a heatwave.

                              That being said the Broncos aren't going to the SB and its not so much the weather as it is everything else about this team. People forget that they actually were good the first half of the game and then it fell apart.

                              They really needed Julius Thomas more than Welker who was better off sitting out this game.

                              Sure you can get a heat wave, but odds are that it will be pretty cold. Even if it's somewhat mild, it will still be cold once the sun sets and the game starts.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                                I don't think weather is what caused the Broncos to lose a factor perhaps but when you blow a lead like that there's something else wrong here.

                                That being said I don't know who will win it all. The only team I think is impressive is Seattle at home away from home not as much.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X