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

Super Bowl Thread

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

  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

    Of course they are legit criticisms but sometimes it just isn't meant to be. Maybe Manning was meant to only win 1 ring I agree that is very disappointing.

    The best team doesn't always win its the one who shows up in this case I think the best team won and they showed up. Defense wins championships not offense.

    But it will be shown as how Manning has failed, choker, etc and all those records etc don't really mean much when it comes to his career even though he's still a great QB(just not today)

    Nobody ever says this about Jim Kelly even though he went to four straight SBs and lost, or Marino all those records and no rings how come he's not a choke artist.

    Comment


    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

      Easily the worst Super Bowl I've ever seen. I was pulling for Denver, sure, but above all else I wanted to see an exciting game. Yeah... 0 for 2. Let's hope we're treated to something better when the Super Bowl eventually comes back to Indy.

      The Seahawks have the makings of a dynasty. Maybe now Seattle can shut up about losing the Sonics to a superior class of people in OKC.

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        I don't know the Niners/Broncos SB was the worst

        That was 55-10 and it had Montana and Elway in it.

        Like I said the real SB was the SF/Seattle game they really were the two best teams in the NFL when it came down to it. Denver had the fortune to play a bad AFC conference and were exposed to show the NFC is the superior conference.

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          The Seahawks have the makings of a dynasty. Maybe now Seattle can shut up about losing the Sonics to a superior class of people in OKC.
          I'm glad they're in the NFC. That way if they become the early-2000's Patriots they can be someone else's roadblock every year.

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            I don't know the Niners/Broncos SB was the worst

            That was 55-10 and it had Montana and Elway in it.
            I said the worst I've seen, not the worst ever. 49ers vs. Broncos was way back in 1990, long before my football fandom began.


            Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
            I'm glad they're in the NFC. That way if they become the early-2000's Patriots they can be someone else's roadblock every year.
            If we play our cards right, we could become the class of the AFC for the foreseeable future, and maybe even become the Bills to Seattle's Cowboys, or, preferably, vice versa.

            Comment


            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              I said the worst I've seen, not the worst ever. 49ers vs. Broncos was way back in 1990, long before my football fandom began.




              If we play our cards right, we could become the class of the AFC for the foreseeable future, and maybe even become the Bills to Seattle's Cowboys, or, preferably, vice versa.
              I have no desire to become the Bills it was bad enough the Saints beat us in the SB but to experience that 4 times in a row? I don't think so.

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                Denver now owns the record for most SB losses... 5...
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                  Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                  Peyton played fine considering how bad his line was playing. Not to mention horrible field position and no run game.

                  If a QB gets no help his play of course is gonna suffer.

                  People talk about Mannings failures as if hes Tony Romo.

                  Peytons entire team played like garbage tonight. You expect miracles from him. And when he fails to deliver you say he chokes in the postseason.
                  I wouldn't say that he chokes in the post season, but I would say that he doesn't play his best when it matters most more times than not. One measure of greatness is how you can step up your game with the whole season on the line. The great ones elevate their game on the biggest stages. Don't really see it from Manning most of the time. I was really hoping he had a great game tonight and put some of the doubters to rest......but alas.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    Except you have always said he has so why the change of tune now? I mean really at least own it.

                    Weren't you expecting this to begin with? After all you said the Broncos shouldn't have even been the odds on favorite for the SB because of Manning. I didn't trust Denver either they fooled people actually getting to the SB though. There's something missing with this team and it goes beyond Manning at this point.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      Except you have always said he has so why the change of tune now? I mean really at least own it.

                      Weren't you expecting this to begin with? After all you said the Broncos shouldn't have even been the odds on favorite for the SB because of Manning. I didn't trust Denver either they fooled people actually getting to the SB though. There's something missing with this team and it goes beyond Manning at this point.
                      The first play of the game the ball goes sailing over Manning's head. And from that moment on Manning never looked comfortable. He's the unquestioned leader of the team... if he's not comfortable then everyone else feeds off of it and they are off their game too.

                      Manning took a **** on the biggest stage and put another chapter into the book about him choking in big games.

                      At this point it is what it is. He owns it. If he doesn't want to own it then he best come as close as he can to running the table in the playoffs on these last few years he's in the NFL.

                      Teams know how to beat him. Let the pressure of the moment get to him and let the pressure of the defense get to him. Then watch it snowball.

                      Meanwhile, use that weak arm against him.

                      Manning wasn't the only reason they lost of course, but he also wasn't there shining star amongst trash either. He played like crap and looked uncomfortable the entire game. It's easier to admit this stuff when he's wearing an orange jersey.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                        Of course he played badly hard to dispute that but the Broncos were bad in all phases of the game they were outplayed and outcoached. The better team won but instead the focal point will about how Manning failed.

                        Not that Seattle was the superior team they deserve credit for that because they were dominant. We've seen this before #1 Offense(Bills) vs #1 Defense(Cowboys) and we knew how that ended as well. Why was this going to be different? I expected more than 8 points though but that's about it. I didn't think Denver was going to win.

                        No its how Manning failed in the SB yet again what a complete and utter loser he is after the season he's had. I get QBs get a ton of credit and also the blame that goes with it but they don't say this about Jim Kelly who lost 4 SBs in a row. I mean at least Manning has won 1.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          Look what happened in the Denver - Indy game this season, it was a really hyped regular season, SNF game and he was playing in hostile environment (once the game started) and the Colts got pressure on him and hit him, and although he didn't look terrible, the Colts still found a way to get the win.

                          That damn botched snap that led to a safety really screwed them over. As if it's not already the biggest game that most of these guys have played in, you have that happen 15 seconds into the game? Manning and the Broncos were on edge the rest of the game, and although Peyton did get into a rhythm, a few times, when the game was still somewhat in reach, the rest of his team collectively **** their pants.

                          Thomas gets a big catch for a first down, then fumbles? Come on. Moreno had like 2 almost fumbles. Special teams giving up a TD return on kickoff? My God it's telling how much the team relies on Peyton. If he's rattled and not comfortable everyone just ***** their pants.

                          Manning didn't play well, and set the tone with early struggles for the rest of the team to freak out and be horrible.

                          Wilson had like 15 passes tonight. I still can't believe the Seahawks ran away with this win so easily. I can totally understand people saying they are the better team, the more complete team, they have the best defense and all. But it's Peyton Manning and that historic record breaking offense. At least make it a game. I don't give a damn how good their defense is.

                          Seahawks were playing preseason football in the 4th QTR.

                          The Colts beat this damn team, well they beat both teams, but we beat Seattle. We actually scored points when the game wasn't completely over.

                          I feel horrible for Peyton and yes, he set the tone for the bad play, but man, the coaching and rest of the team gave him ZERO chance to make it interesting.

                          F Denver, though. Glad Elway doesn't get another Super Bowl, but still feel for Peyton. Depresses me.

                          Go Colts, Go Pacers, Go Peyton (when not playing Colts)
                          Last edited by Lord Helmet; 02-03-2014, 03:17 AM.
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            Elway doesn't really bother me I mean if he didn't spurn the Colts they wouldn't have been in Indy to begin with.

                            I like John Fox way more than Pete Carroll though.

                            Putting that aside hearing via police scanner Seahawks fans burning down Seattle is sadly more "entertaining" than the game itself. I'm glad when Indy did win the SB that nobody trashed the city in the process.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                              I just hope Peyton can get another ring before it's all said and done. Obviously as long as it doesn't affect the Indianapolis "football" Colts

                              It just sucks because Peyton only has a few more years left, and this Seahawks team is young and will be contenders for a decade more than likely.

                              I like Wilson and Coleman (the deaf fullback) they are class acts.

                              Sherman, to be honest, isn't that bad either. He had nothing but praise for Peyton after the game on Twitter. Said something along the lines of "Peyton is the classiest guy. I can learn a lot from him." Then said, "Let's enjoy this win, Seattle, no need to bash a future HOF player"
                              Super Bowl XLI Champions
                              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                So after USC and now Seattle, when do people start heaping praise on Carroll? It's not like he was a disaster in New England, made the playoffs twice then had an 8-8 year but had to deal with replacing Parcells after he took them to a Super Bowl, his stint there was more successful that Parcell's record wise though.

                                It's honestly hard to believe the guy's 62, he's full of **** and vinegar. Guys love playing for him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X