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 Basketball Fan View Post
    Well he's won 2 rings but also the Giants across the board are bad all around.

    With the Texans its Schaub because the rest of the team doesn't look as bad in comparison to the Giants.

    He's won two rings, yet his career has been a disappointment.......if that makes sense.

    The talent is there. The ability to make clutch throws in big moments is obviously there. He certainly has the hardware. But the guy has just never been able to put together consecutive seasons of quality play like elite quarterbacks should. After the second Super Bowl, he had the opportunity to really cement himself as one of the very best quarterbacks in the game. It looked like he was on his way when they started 6-2 last year. But then the team stumbled down the stretch and didn't even make the playoffs. One year later and they are 0-5. Elite quarterbacks don't miss the playoffs after starting out 6-2, nor do they start 0-6. Tom Brady is throwing to guys that he's never heard of, yet they're 4-1. Peyton could be throwing to high school players and would still do better than 0-5. Anyone who ever compares Eli to Peyton should be slapped in the face.

    Eli has a HOF career because of the hardware. But the guy has never been a true elite quarterback.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-10-2013, 09:44 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      He's won two rings, yet his career has been a disappointment.......if that makes sense.

      The talent is there. The ability to make clutch throws in big moments is obviously there. He certainly has the hardware. But the guy has just never been able to put together consecutive seasons of quality play like elite quarterbacks should. After the second Super Bowl, he had the opportunity to really cement himself as one of the very best quarterbacks in the game. It looked like he was on his way when they started 6-2 last year. But then the team stumbled down the stretch and didn't even make the playoffs. One year later and they are 0-5. Elite quarterbacks don't miss the playoffs after starting out 6-2, nor do they start 0-6. Tom Brady is throwing to guys that he's never heard of, yet they're 4-1. Peyton could be throwing to high school players and would still do better than 0-6. Anyone who ever compares Eli to Peyton should be slapped in the face.

      Eli has a HOF career because of the hardware. But the guy has never been a true elite quarterback.
      And it just shows worthless the regular season really is because QB's aren't judged by that now are they?

      Regardless I think this year Peyton took all the mojo from the Manning Brothers two years ago Eli was having a great year and Peyton well nuff said.

      Comment


      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        And it just shows worthless the regular season really is because QB's aren't judged by that now are they?

        Regardless I think this year Peyton took all the mojo from the Manning Brothers two years ago Eli was having a great year and Peyton well nuff said.

        The regular season isn't worthless. Quarterbacks definitely get judged by regular season. It's just that an emphasis gets put on postseason when you're comparing guys like Manning and Brady who are excellent every regular season. But you have to get to the playoffs before you can shine in the regular season, and Eli hasn't gotten to the playoffs enough despite having the two Super Bowls. Eli may have one more ring, but there's no rational person who would put him in Peyton's class. Sure, some people got caught up in the heat of the moment two years ago when Eli had the second ring, while Peyton said out the entire career. But that was all overreaction, and Peyton would have still been better even if he would have never taken another NFL snap. Peyton's routine regular season success shows that he has consistently performed at an elite level throughout his entire career, while Eli has been all over the place and often very very very crappy.

        Comment


        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

          Eli doesn't really have a good team around right now. No monster defense like they had and a poor offensive line without a run game. He's not like Peyton or the other really good QBs who can carry a team on their own. But you give Eli a team and he will excel. Not everybody can do that
          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

          Comment


          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            The regular season isn't worthless. Quarterbacks definitely get judged by regular season. It's just that an emphasis gets put on postseason when you're comparing guys like Manning and Brady who are excellent every regular season. But you have to get to the playoffs before you can shine in the regular season, and Eli hasn't gotten to the playoffs enough despite having the two Super Bowls. Eli may have one more ring, but there's no rational person who would put him in Peyton's class. Sure, some people got caught up in the heat of the moment two years ago when Eli had the second ring, while Peyton said out the entire career. But that was all overreaction, and Peyton would have still been better even if he would have never taken another NFL snap. Peyton's routine regular season success shows that he has consistently performed at an elite level throughout his entire career, while Eli has been all over the place and often very very very crappy.


            That's not stopped them from dogging Matt Ryan or Tony Romo for that matter(although Romo can be just as bad in the regular season)

            Regardless there's a reason why John Elway will always be more celebrated than Dan Marino even though Marino was a far more talented QB he never won a ring Elway won two fortunately for him.

            Comment


            • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

              This will turn again to rings vs season stats and QB quality. I tend to agree with Sollozo here. I mean I am not hating on Eli cause I think he can be a superb QB and clutch of course but if you look at his stats they are rather pedestrian/normal. Yes I know he has 2 rings and just one less win than Peyton in the playoffs but don't tell me you'd pick him over Peyton. He has 8 wins out 11 games and those 8 came when he went all the way to win the SB from the WC round.

              I agree it's a measure (SB rings) to compare elite QB's but sorry I can't say Eli is one of the greatest QBs to have graced the game.
              Never forget

              Comment


              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                New concerns about Gronk

                The Patriots thought the Pro Bowl tight end would make his debut as soon as Week 3 against Tampa Bay.

                However, Gronkowski did not make his debut on Sept. 22, and has yet to step on the field for his first snap of game action. The reason: concern over the stability of his surgically repaired left forearm after a procedure performed by Patriots doctor Tom Gill.



                WEEI.com has learned from multiple industry sources that the arm, injured initially on Nov. 18, 2012, against the Colts, might have healed properly on its own with no surgery necessary. But the team and Gronkowski, perhaps looking to hasten his return to the field, decided upon surgery to use an implement in hopes he would be ready for the playoffs.



                One source with knowledge of the initial forearm surgery told WEEI.com Thursday night that there is “serious concern” about the integrity of the bone where the implement was placed and the surrounding nerves. The source indicated that if the bone had healed on its own without an implement, there might have been no infection. However, there now are concerns that an abscess developed, causing infection and likely weakening the bone. This prompted three more surgeries in the offseason on the forearm, separate from the procedure on his back.
                http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/...ob-gronkowski/



                So there is a chance team doctor screwed up and now Gronk visiting James Andrews?
                Never forget

                Comment


                • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                  This Gronk situation will be very worrisome if he is held out against the Saints after all of the initial hope at the beginning of this week.

                  I obviously don't like the Pats, but I've always liked Gronk. The guy is a beast of a talent and it would be a shame if this injury continues to linger.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                    Wow, 0-6 for the Giants

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                      I may be imagining things, but did I see some players going at each other right behind the Giants HC right after Eli's last pick? I swear I did and Coughlin basically saying "cut it out, not now". No one has commented on that, but I swear I saw that


                      ____

                      Also....

                      the modern record for most picks in a season is 35 by Vinny Testaverde in 1988. The all time record for interceptions is 42 by George Blanda in '62.


                      I can only imagine how much Eli would hate his life is Peyton win a SB and eli set either of the above records. FYI through 6 weeks Eli has 15 interceptions.
                      He had 15 all of last yea

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                        Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                        This will turn again to rings vs season stats and QB quality. I tend to agree with Sollozo here. I mean I am not hating on Eli cause I think he can be a superb QB and clutch of course but if you look at his stats they are rather pedestrian/normal. Yes I know he has 2 rings and just one less win than Peyton in the playoffs but don't tell me you'd pick him over Peyton. He has 8 wins out 11 games and those 8 came when he went all the way to win the SB from the WC round.

                        I agree it's a measure (SB rings) to compare elite QB's but sorry I can't say Eli is one of the greatest QBs to have graced the game.

                        I must've missed the part where I said I'd pick him over Peyton I'm just pointing out how things are judged and its rather absurd I mean Terry Bradshaw won 4 rings just like Joe Montana but does anyone really celebrate him in the same regard as Montana? No

                        Does anyone think he's a better QB than Dan Marino? No but Bradshaw will be considered more memorable because of those 4 rings compared to Dan Marino.

                        Its how things are perceived is my point.

                        As for Gronk to think if Bill didn't keep him during a game that was already put away by the Pats against us last season this might not be happening to him..

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                          I get that about how they are being perceived. I wasn't necessarily addressing you but rather stating my opinion.

                          Question: If Eli and Peyton retired now, does anyone think Eli would be more memorable because he has one more SB? My point is that only few certain QB's can be judged head to head regarding their SB wins. Eli is not one of them.


                          As for Gronk, I wouldn't necessarily go there. Yes he was injured in an effort to block for his team for the extra point but **** happens. He had taken part in so many similar situations before and he hadn't been injured.
                          Never forget

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post

                            As for Gronk to think if Bill didn't keep him during a game that was already put away by the Pats against us last season this might not be happening to him..
                            What you are missing is that a FG/ extra point unit has a long snapper, a holder, the kicker, and 8 blockers on the line.

                            So if your roster has 8 offensive linemen (5 starters) and 3 TEs (2 starters) dressing for a game, at minimum all of the 4 backups and 4 of the starting OL/TEs are among the 8 blockers playing on that unit, unless you use defensive players. So you must use a lot of starters on that special teams unit. It's how the roster math works, for every team.
                            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

                              So Tampa's had another MRSA outbreak. Schefter says the players union may want to cancel the Eagles @ Bucs game this weekend depending on what the containment report says. Can't blame em, MRSA's some nasty stuff.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2013 non-Colts thread

                                Week Six has arrived for the Patriots, and the verdict has arrived for tight end Rob Gronkowski.

                                Per a league source, Dr. James Andrews has recommended that Gronkowski not play.


                                http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...wski-not-play/


                                At this point, you have to wonder if he plays at all this season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X