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

    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
    What exactly is a complete success here? More than 1 SB? 2? I mean yes I think we should've won more and wished we did but looking back I'm surprised we even won 1 to be honest considering the team is built for the regular season and not the postseason. Unfortunately Irsay never realized that till after Manning left go figure.

    I mean I think the Manning era was successful to say otherwise seems rather ridiculous to me. I mean the Bills of the 90s went to 4 SBs and lost that's a fail right there. Or the Eagles with McNabb/Andy Reid 1 SB appearance.

    Sometimes it doesn't work out that way.


    My only issue with the Manning criticism is if he's not the greatest to ever play they why continuously say "Well if he wins this game he can enter the GOAT conversation" I mean if he sucks just say so and stick with it. I mean nothing he does here on out will matter at this point right? But come Fall this will start back up again because he has to "redeem" himself. Have to keep this narrative going I guess.


    And yes most if not every other Pacers fan remembers who we lost to in the NBA Finals it was the Lakers and it was hard to ignore considering it became the first of 3 championships Kobe/Shaq won in a row. And as sad as that was I think the 1998 season was more brutal I thought that team was better than the one that did go to the Finals.
    A lot of it is because he usually starts off so well in the regular season. Many people start thinking: "This could actually be the year he gets his second ring." The regular season keeps him in talks about how great his legacy, could/should/would be. But whether you like it, or disagree, people remember champions the most...especially as time goes by. When you look up players or teams from long past, you hardly think about how they did in the regular season...you check out how many championships they won. Records get broken and stats come and go, but championships are etched in stone forever.

    And about past players and teams that didn't get that elusive trophy...when the pundits talk about a good QB that retires ringless, who do they compare him to? Dan Marino. He's infamous for not getting a ring.

    Comment


    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

      Originally posted by pogi View Post
      A lot of it is because he usually starts off so well in the regular season. Many people start thinking: "This could actually be the year he gets his second ring." The regular season keeps him in talks about how great his legacy, could/should/would be. But whether you like it, or disagree, people remember champions the most...especially as time goes by. When you look up players or teams from long past, you hardly think about how they did in the regular season...you check out how many championships they won. Records get broken and stats come and go, but championships are etched in stone forever.

      And about past players and teams that didn't get that elusive trophy...when the pundits talk about a good QB that retires ringless, who do they compare him to? Dan Marino. He's infamous for not getting a ring.
      Except regular season doesn't really mean anything beyond postseason seeding yes this season the two top seeds actually made it to the SB but it doesn't always happen that way. When the Colts won it all they weren't the #1 seed the Chargers were. Defense and a ground game matter when it comes right down to it. I mean how many high flying offenses won it all? I mean why do people think that will change all of a sudden?

      The playoffs are different you never know what teams show up on what day the 2011 Packers looked unbeatable and got upset at home by the Giants who barely got into the playoffs. There are too many variables in the NFL postseason especially in a one and done format the best team doesn't always advance just the one that was good on that day.

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        Except regular season doesn't really mean anything beyond postseason seeding yes this season the two top seeds actually made it to the SB but it doesn't always happen that way. When the Colts won it all they weren't the #1 seed the Chargers were.

        The playoffs are different you never know what teams show up on what day the 2011 Packers looked unbeatable and got upset at home by the Giants who barely got into the playoffs. There are too many variables in the NFL postseason especially in a one and done format the best team doesn't always advance just the one that was good on that day.
        Exactly. And in that sense, that's what makes Peyton an enigma. He has record-breaking regular season games, then fizzles out in playoff games. I mean, how can someone break all these records and win multiple MVPs, yet, look very average come playoff time?

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          Originally posted by pogi View Post
          Exactly. And in that sense, that's what makes Peyton an enigma. He has record-breaking regular season games, then fizzles out in playoff games. I mean, how can someone break all these records and win multiple MVPs, yet, look very average come playoff time?

          Gee I don't know other teams might actually be better? Hard to believe but you need more than one player to win a championship(except where Peyton is concerned apparently)I'm not saying he hasn't played badly or anything he has but people act as if he didn't play well the past two postseason games. Or how the Colts used to crush Denver in the playoffs.

          I mean if you haven't noticed most if not all his postseason losses ended up being to teams that ended up winning the SB. They weren't deserving to win? Why?

          The playoffs are about matchups we won it all in 2006 because we matched up well with the teams we faced.

          Denver didn't match up well with Seattle but the Colts do. Yet the Colts couldn't match up with the Pats but the Broncos could.

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            I agree with your position about matchups being very important.

            It's also important to not clutter up any argument with incorrect info. 6 games out of 12 is not all, or even most (playoff losses to non-champions Titans, Dolphins, Jets, Chargers, Chargers again, and Jets again).

            Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
            I mean if you haven't noticed most if not all his postseason losses ended up being to teams that ended up winning the SB.
            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: Super Bowl Thread

              Most if not all but apparently its half although the Titans did end up in the SB that season

              Regardless the NFL is a one and done format its not like the NBA or MLB where the best team usually wins its whoever was good on that particular day and some teams match up better with others.

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                Originally posted by pogi View Post
                Exactly. And in that sense, that's what makes Peyton an enigma. He has record-breaking regular season games, then fizzles out in playoff games. I mean, how can someone break all these records and win multiple MVPs, yet, look very average come playoff time?
                Should I repost the career playoff numbers of Peyton, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, and Joe Montana again? I would really really love how people would explain to me how Peyton's numbers, which pretty much match all the rest of the QBs numbers, are consided "average" when their numbers are supposedly for the QBs who belong in the GOAT discussion.

                I just don't think people actually realize how good PM has performed, on average, throughout the playoffs. I say "on average" for a reason, because yes he has some stinkers. He also has some really good playoff performances that balance out those stinkers. Just like Brady, Aikman, and Montana. It's just a shame how Peyton is defined by his stinkers, and people think that's the "real" Peyton playoff performance.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Should I repost the career playoff numbers of Peyton, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, and Joe Montana again?
                  Nah - just list their championships. That should be enough.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Should I repost the career playoff numbers of Peyton, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, and Joe Montana again? I would really really love how people would explain to me how Peyton's numbers, which pretty much match all the rest of the QBs numbers, are consided "average" when their numbers are supposedly for the QBs who belong in the GOAT discussion.

                    I just don't think people actually realize how good PM has performed, on average, throughout the playoffs. I say "on average" for a reason, because yes he has some stinkers. He also has some really good playoff performances that balance out those stinkers. Just like Brady, Aikman, and Montana. It's just a shame how Peyton is defined by his stinkers, and people think that's the "real" Peyton playoff performance.
                    You make a valid argument, but QB rating means very little to me when judging playoff performance. A QB could have a very good game and then fold or choke or throw a costly pick in the 4th quarter with the game on the line and his numbers would still look good. Anybody that says that Peyton hasn't played below average in the posts season is kidding themselves. You can even see it on his face. He's not the same QB in extreme high pressure games.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Nah - just list their championships. That should be enough.
                      Hopefully pogi doesn't move the goalposts. I can't hit moving targets.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                        You make a valid argument, but QB rating means very little to me when judging playoff performance. A QB could have a very good game and then fold or choke or throw a costly pick in the 4th quarter with the game on the line and his numbers would still look good. Anybody that says that Peyton hasn't played below average in the posts season is kidding themselves. You can even see it on his face. He's not the same QB in extreme high pressure games.
                        It's more than just a qb rating. His number of picks is similiar to the rest of them. We just have a better memory of his picks. His picks are usually the result of them being down and him taking a chance. I get saying he throws untimely ones, I completely agree even though I do put stock in the "excuse" , but to say that he's an average playoff QB is ignorant of the total body of work.
                        Last edited by Since86; 02-04-2014, 01:27 PM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          These are the stats prior to Sunday's SB. (I'm really too lazy to add them in, rather than trying to avoid it. I just copied and pasted from the earlier discussion)

                          Player A (22 games): 64.05comp% 286.6yds/gm 36TDs (1.63 TD/gm) 22INTs (1INT/gm) QBR 90.1
                          Player B (26games): 62.11comp% 247.1yds/gm 43TDs (1.65TD/gm) 22INTs (0.85INT/gm) QBR 87.5
                          Player C (23games): 62.67comp% 251yds/gm 45TDs (1.95TD/gm) 21INT (0.91INT/gm) QBR 95.6
                          Player D (16games): 63.75comp% 240.6yds/gm 23TDS (1.43TD/gm) 17INT (1.1INT/gm) QBR 88.3

                          So which one is Peyton and how exactly is he "average?"
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            ........ how exactly is he "average?"
                            He has an 11-12 postseason record.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                              You make a valid argument, but QB rating means very little to me when judging playoff performance. A QB could have a very good game and then fold or choke or throw a costly pick in the 4th quarter with the game on the line and his numbers would still look good. Anybody that says that Peyton hasn't played below average in the posts season is kidding themselves. You can even see it on his face. He's not the same QB in extreme high pressure games.
                              So was he playing below average in the other two games leading up to the SB? Because you had no comment whatsoever about him up until Sunday

                              I have no issue with people saying he sucked in the SB because he did but I don't get how people are discounting that he actually played well up until that point or that doesn't matter since the team lost the SB.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                                He has an 11-12 postseason record.
                                If that's how we judge individual players, then Trent Dilfer is the GOAT and it's not even up for debate.

                                His playoff record is 5-1.

                                43.7comp% 161.8yds/game 4TDs (0.667 TDs/gm) 4 INTs (0.667 INTs/gm) QBR 66.

                                ALL HAIL THE GOAT!!!
                                Last edited by Since86; 02-04-2014, 01:45 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X