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

    Owning a football team has to be one of the greatest things ever. I mean they're rich and they get amazing seats for every single game.

    What a life.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      It's the curse of the Giants being a joke in the regular season and having a quarterback who will never be able to kick it into a consistent elite gear. Going into this season, the Giants had missed the playoffs in three of the last four seasons.

      It's bizarre to say that a QB/head coach duo that has won two Super Bowls is a disappointment, but that's exactly what they are. Amazing that a team that looked all world in the playoffs two years ago is such a joke now.
      Except when the Giants missed the playoffs they weren't below .500

      Last year they had the same exact record as they did in 2011 but missed the playoffs because they didn't win the division.

      This year I think they will win 6 games at most.

      Its odd that this team is starting 0-4.. Eli is having one of his worst seasons ever while Peyton is having one of his best two years ago it was the opposite.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        It's the curse of the Giants being a joke in the regular season and having a quarterback who will never be able to kick it into a consistent elite gear. Going into this season, the Giants had missed the playoffs in three of the last four seasons.

        It's bizarre to say that a QB/head coach duo that has won two Super Bowls is a disappointment, but that's exactly what they are. Amazing that a team that looked all world in the playoffs two years ago is such a joke now.
        I'm willing to bet most fans of say, the Falcons or basically any team that hasn't win a Super Bowl recently would say they'd gladly trade results.

        Ironically, Eli missing the playoffs again means his record remains as 8-3 and better than Peyton. It's silly I now, but just wait till next year if they get back to the playoffs and maybe win a wild card game.

        "Eli hasn't lost a playoff game in 3 years!"

        They did it with Brady after the Patriots went Super Bowl/miss playoffs/Super Bowl/Super Bowl.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

          Torn achilles for Vince Wilfork, and the Patriots lose their 2nd best player for the season. yikes.
          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 Slick Pinkham View Post
            Torn achilles for Vince Wilfork, and the Patriots lose their 2nd best player for the season. yikes.

            Ouch. That's certainly a big loss. Definitely hurts the run D.

            I'm sure the Pats will figure out a way to keep winning though, like they always do. That was an impressive win last night. I just don't think that the Falcons are ever going to be able to break through. When they are in the red zone and need a do-or-die touchdown to win/tie a big game, they can't convert. Last night was like a replay of the NFC championship game last year. This team has looked flat all season. I think that the NFC championship game loss is still haunting them. They may never have an opportunity like that that again.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
              Theyll have to win some division games to do so, but sadly you may be right (Dal is down right now 0-7 against SD)
              Yeah, I probably spoke too soon. Dallas never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They are 2-2 and have Peyton rolling into town next weekend, and will be 2-3 when they lose that one. For as laughably bad as the Giants have been, they would only be one game out of the division lead with a win and a Dallas loss.

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                I'm willing to bet most fans of say, the Falcons or basically any team that hasn't win a Super Bowl recently would say they'd gladly trade results.

                Ironically, Eli missing the playoffs again means his record remains as 8-3 and better than Peyton. It's silly I now, but just wait till next year if they get back to the playoffs and maybe win a wild card game.

                "Eli hasn't lost a playoff game in 3 years!"

                They did it with Brady after the Patriots went Super Bowl/miss playoffs/Super Bowl/Super Bowl.
                Oh, no doubt that fans of virtually any franchise except the Patriots and Steelers would trade their last decade with the Giants. I'm just saying that despite the impressive two Super Bowl wins, they have still largely been a disappointment, as strange as it might sound. You would think that a quarterback and team that was able to play so fantastic in the playoffs two years ago would figure out a way to consistently win in the regular season, but they just can't ever put it together. And they play in a weak division.

                I remember after the Super Bowl win two years ago, some were asking if Eli was better than Peyton. Eli was fresh off of a second magical playoff run, while Peyton had missed the entire season. These past two seasons have shown that Eli still doesn't even belong in a discussion with Peyton. Peyton would never blow a division lead after starting out 6-2 like Eli did last year. Peyton would never start out 0-4, even if he were surrounded by a practice squad. After winning that Super Bowl two years ago, Eli had the opportunity to go on a tear and become a true elite quarterback by consistently putting together great regular seasons. But it just doesn't look like he'll ever be able to do it. I know it sounds strange to say that someone with two Super Bowl MVP's could have had a better career, but his career certainly leaves a lot to be desired at this point.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-30-2013, 08:24 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                  I actually totally agree with you, it's just that in our modern discussions winning during the regular season is almost a negative if you don't follow it up "when it counts" in the playoffs. I believe from the public perception it is literally better to miss the playoffs than to lose a playoff game and be seen as choking.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                    I actually totally agree with you, it's just that in our modern discussions winning during the regular season is almost a negative if you don't follow it up "when it counts" in the playoffs. I believe from the public perception it is literally better to miss the playoffs than to lose a playoff game and be seen as choking.
                    Definitely agree. Eli's resume' would be better if he were 8-5 in the playoffs instead of 8-3. Going one and done in the playoffs is certainly better than not making the playoffs at all.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                      Peyton is getting a lot of credit for his historic start to the season. Deservedly so.

                      Brady is getting a lot of credit for the depleted Patriots being 4-0. Deservedly so.

                      But what about Drew Brees and the Saints? Man, that team looks scary good right now. I knew that they would come back with a roar with Sean Payton back on the sidelines. That guy is easily a top 5 coach in the NFL. And why did Dallas kick Rob Ryan out the door? He is a big reason why that New Orleans defense has completely turned around. I will never like the Saints because they crushed our hearts in the Super Bowl, but there's no doubt that they are a top team right now. Atlanta missed their opportunity last year when New Orleans was shaken by the suspensions. They will probably never have an opportunity like that again. The Saints should comfortably win the division.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-01-2013, 12:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Peyton is getting a lot of credit for his historic start to the season. Deservedly so.

                        Brady is getting a lot of credit for the depleted Patriots being 4-0. Deservedly so.

                        But what about Drew Brees in the Saints? Man, that team looks scary good right now. I knew that they would come back with a roar with Sean Payton back on the sidelines. That guy is easily a top 5 coach in the NFL. And why did Dallas kick Rob Ryan out the door? He is a big reason why that New Orleans defense has completely turned around. I will never like the Saints because they crushed our hearts in the Super Bowl, but there's no doubt that they are a top team right now. Atlanta missed their opportunity last year when New Orleans was shaken by the suspensions. They will probably never have an opportunity like that again. The Saints should comfortably win the division.
                        He is getting credit but I think based on last season they may not give Drew credit since the Saints weren't too hot without Sean Payton most people think his success is mostly because of him.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          He is getting credit but I think based on last season they may not give Drew credit since the Saints weren't too hot without Sean Payton most people think his success is mostly because of him.
                          Yeah, but that situation last year is something that none of the other premier QB's have ever had to deal with. I'm not going to fault Brees too much for the bad season.

                          I get what you're saying though. This wasn't a playoff team last year and some people probably wrote them off a bit this year. But they are one dangerous team right now.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                            At home the Saints are dangerous but they have to go to Chicago and New England and Seattle later in the season ..... I think that will be a real test for them.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                              I give the Saints full credit if their production on the road (especially on offense) does not take the precipitous plunge that it has in past seasons. I recall seeing career home/road splits for Brees and it is striking. He is one of the best ever at home and merely pretty good on the road. There is nowhere near a big a dip for Brady and Rogers, and a smaller one for Peyton too.

                              I'm not saying that there should be no dip at all if you play in a home dome. Most QBs are more effective in perfect weather. Brady had a much higher passer rating in dome games, for example, even though every single one of them is of course on the road. But it shouldn't be night vs. day.

                              Oddly NO also has had home /road night/day effects even with their team defense.
                              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 Slick Pinkham View Post
                                I give the Saints full credit if their production on the road (especially on offense) does not take the precipitous plunge that it has in past seasons. I recall seeing career home/road splits for Brees and it is striking. He is one of the best ever at home and merely pretty good on the road. There is nowhere near a big a dip for Brady and Rogers, and a smaller one for Peyton too.

                                I'm not saying that there should be no dip at all if you play in a home dome. Most QBs are more effective in perfect weather. Brady had a much higher passer rating in dome games, for example, even though every single one of them is of course on the road. But it shouldn't be night vs. day.

                                Oddly NO also has had home /road night/day effects even with their team defense.
                                Saints' road record from 2009-11 when they made the playoffs three straight seasons:

                                09: 7-1 (6-2 at home)
                                10: 6-2 (5-3 at home)
                                11: 5-3 (8-0 at home)

                                So during those three years, they went a combined 18-6 on the road, compared to 19-5 at home. I didn't look at Brees' stats, but the team itself had basically the same results on the road as they did at home. The reason I cherry-picked those years is that those were the three years in which the Saints were a true elite team.

                                I don't doubt that Brees' splits are way better at home. He didn't even make the playoffs as a starter in 2005, 2007, and 2008. But that team was just a monster overall from 09-11. Keep in mind that they don't really play many cold weather games. Atlanta plays in a dome, Tampa is warm, and Carolina isn't exactly the northeast.

                                I don't see any way in which Atlanta can make up three games on them, so at the very least, they should be hosting a playoff game in that dome.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X