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

Playoff Thread

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

  • Re: Playoff Thread

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013...-deal-skittles

    Marshawn Lynch gets sweet deal

    Marshawn Lynch's run of giving Skittles free publicity is officially over.

    The candy brand will announce on Tuesday a formal deal with the Seattle Seahawks running back, whose relationship with the sweet dates to when his mother started giving him what she called "power pellets" in his Pop Warner playing days.
    To celebrate its partnership with Marshawn Lynch, Skittles has made limited-edition packages of a "Seattle Mix," a bag that includes only blue and green candies.
    While specific terms of the deal are unknown, sources told ESPN that Lynch will receive financial compensation. The brand also will donate $10,000 to Lynch's Fam First Foundation every time he scores a touchdown in Sunday's Super Bowl.

    The deal marks the first time the rainbow candy brand ever has paid an athlete.

    To celebrate the partnership, Skittles has made limited edition packages of a "Seattle Mix," a bag that includes only circles of blue and green colors that the brand will hand out this week.

    Lynch's connection with Skittles, combined with the team's success, has caused some Seattle-area supermarkets to run short on the candy on home game weekends.

    That's partly due to the fact that the Seahawks have been giving Lynch "rainbow showers" when he scores touchdowns.

    Delaware North, the food vendor at Seattle's CenturyLink Field, recently began selling the "Beast Mode" burger, which includes a side of Skittles.

    The brand also will donate $10,000 to Marshawn Lynch's Fam First Foundation every time he scores a touchdown in Sunday's Super Bowl.
    It doesn't stop there. A butcher in Puyallup, Wash., located 30 miles south of Seattle, is selling hot sausage links with Skittles inside.

    Striking a deal with Lynch still could turn into a bargain for the brand. Last week, media monitoring company Kantar Media told Ad Age that Lynch's presence in the Super Bowl could be worth as much as $5 million to Skittles.

    As part of its deal with the running back, Skittles also will be auctioning off a Skittles-covered football helmet and football, and a Skittles-covered megaphone, to honor Seattle's 12th man.

    Skittles doesn't have an official deal with the NFL, but two brands owned by its parent company, Mars, do: M&M's and Snickers. Skittles currently has the 17th-most popular Facebook fan page among all brands with more than 25 million fans.

    Comment


    • Re: Playoff Thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      A funny take from Jim Rome:

      He’s 9 days out from his 3rd Super Bowl, and Peyton Manning’s probably got his beak permanently stuck in his iPad watching every snap the Seahawks have ever taken.

      But it turns out Little Brother wants to chip in. Eli lives there, balls there and plans to give Peyt the Intel on how to thrive there. Then again, exactly what is Eli going to tell Manning that he doesn’t already know? They met straight up in that house earlier this season, Peyton hung 41 on Eli and little bro was picked off 4 times. And right now the only thing they have in common is DNA.

      Sure, there was a time when Eli could tell Peyton how to play in that house….but I’m not sure even he knows anymore. I mean, you’re not going into the dark room and breaking tape of the Seahawks, are you, E? They picked you off FIVE times! Curtis Painter came off the bench and outplayd you! If I didn’t know any better, my man, I’d say you were trying to sabotage your brother so you can stay in the 1-hole in the Family Ring Count.

      If you’re really about helping your bro get ready for this guy, the best thing you can do is get out of town. Because he’d be better off taking his tips from Cooper.


      lol

      http://jimrome.com/2014/01/24/little...ts-to-chip-in/
      "Curtis Painter came off the bench and outplayd you!"

      Best part.

      Comment


      • Re: Playoff Thread

        maybe off topic but I was in the car today picking my son up from school.

        No link, but the Dan LeBatard show today (790 the Ticket in Miami) aired a media day interview of Wes Welker with Deion Sanders. Wes's speech sounded a little slurred, to be honest. They then pulled up clips from 8 years ago, when he was a Dolphin.


        They alternated back and forth, clips from 2006 and clips from today. (I think it was LeBatard- either them or ESPN 106.3)


        To be honest, it DOES sound like he has some scrambled eggs in his head that he did not have before. I don't mean to be flippant about brain damage, but it sounded pretty amazing, the comparison. He does not speak like the same person. And I'm not talking about an Oklahoma accent.


        They also played a clip from today where he was asked if he would ever cover up concussion-like symptoms to play in a big game. His answer was to laugh and say "of course, we all would"


        Not to be reactionary, but I am SERIOUSLY worried about this guy's future.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-28-2014, 08:55 PM.
        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: Playoff Thread

          here's a tantalizing "what if"

          Individual just told me Pats were interested in dealing for Larry Fitzgerald last offseason. And this person I believe without reservation
          Tom E. Curren, Yahoo! Sports

          https://twitter.com/tomecurran/statu...69563495473152
          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: Playoff Thread

            Eh I'm sure it was a possibility but it sounds like revisionist history you know because if they had Larry Fitzgerald they would've beaten Denver and be in the SB

            Comment


            • Re: Playoff Thread

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              Eh I'm sure it was a possibility but it sounds like revisionist history you know because if they had Larry Fitzgerald they would've beaten Denver and be in the SB
              He definitely could have been enough to win them one more game, which would have put the AFC title game in Foxboro.

              Comment


              • Re: Playoff Thread

                I can believe that but it seems every offseason we always hear about players the Patriots could've gotten but never did hindsight is 20/20. I mean the Colts could say they might've been in the hunt for Larry Fitzgerald last offseason doesn't mean it happened.

                Comment


                • Re: Playoff Thread

                  Knicks fans...

                  At the Knicks-Celtics game, a gentleman sitting behind Wes Welker must be a Giants fan, because he took the chance to mock Welker when he was showed on the jumbotron during the game. He first made the choking signal, and then pretended to bobble a ball, making fun of Welker for his big drop in Super Bowl XLVI against New York.



                  http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/2...s-knicks-game/

                  Not that Wes is some big hulking beast or anything, but it must take a fair amount of restraint to put up with such people out in public
                  Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-30-2014, 02:06 PM.
                  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: Playoff Thread

                    This should be a pretty close game that comes down to the end. When you think about it, the last "bad" Super Bowl from a quality of the game standpoint was Colts-Bears seven years ago. That was great for us Colts fans, but fairly boring for everyone else since the Bears were so outmatched. Literally every Super Bowl since then has been entertaining with a couple of them being historically epic. I don't think this Broncos-Seahawks one will disappoint.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Playoff Thread

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      maybe off topic but I was in the car today picking my son up from school.

                      No link, but the Dan LeBatard show today (790 the Ticket in Miami) aired a media day interview of Wes Welker with Deion Sanders. Wes's speech sounded a little slurred, to be honest. They then pulled up clips from 8 years ago, when he was a Dolphin.


                      They alternated back and forth, clips from 2006 and clips from today. (I think it was LeBatard- either them or ESPN 106.3)


                      To be honest, it DOES sound like he has some scrambled eggs in his head that he did not have before. I don't mean to be flippant about brain damage, but it sounded pretty amazing, the comparison. He does not speak like the same person. And I'm not talking about an Oklahoma accent.


                      They also played a clip from today where he was asked if he would ever cover up concussion-like symptoms to play in a big game. His answer was to laugh and say "of course, we all would"


                      Not to be reactionary, but I am SERIOUSLY worried about this guy's future.
                      And as Colts fans there are a few of us worried about Collie too. I understand we're talking about their livelyhood and competitive nature, but damn it is hard to see what some of these guys look like by the time they reach 50.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • Re: Playoff Thread

                        Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                        I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Playoff Thread

                          The day has finally arrived!
                          Smothered Chicken!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Playoff Thread

                            Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                            The day has finally arrived!

                            I'm rooting for Peyton big time, even though I know that a Denver win will haunt Colts fans with some agonizing "what if" questions about Manning.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Playoff Thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I'm rooting for Peyton big time, even though I know that a Denver win will haunt Colts fans with some agonizing "what if" questions about Manning.
                              Some may feel that way but I suspect these fans may have been bigger Manning fans than Colt fans.

                              After the release I always believed (assuming he came back healthy) Manning would get at least one more chance to win a Super Bowl. Never felt that would be the case if he remained a Colt. Even if they had traded the Luck pick for assets. It just felt like the era of being SB relevant with Manning as the QB was over.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Playoff Thread

                                Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                                Some may feel that way but I suspect these fans may have been bigger Manning fans than Colt fans.

                                After the release I always believed (assuming he came back healthy) Manning would get at least one more chance to win a Super Bowl. Never felt that would be the case if he remained a Colt. Even if they had traded the Luck pick for assets. It just felt like the era of being SB relevant with Manning as the QB was over.
                                I do agree as a Colt he would never reach another SB the team isn't really built for that at the moment (or even when we did win the SB but that's another story) so if he wins tonight I don't think the Colts should have any regrets they made the right long term decision regardless.

                                I only have an issue with Irsay's BS revisionist history on the whole thing and Kravitz's about face. I mean you wanted him gone because he was no longer useful as a Colt don't say you cut him because you did it for him. You did it because you had the number 1 and it was a better long term solution to start over with the next possibly great QB over an aging one that you didn't think had anything left. I wish they would just own it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X