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 Since86 View Post
    Can't disagree with any of it. The only thing I'd point out is that the point is usually about how Peyton "chokes" in the playoffs in general.

    I agree. Peyton has gone to 3 Super Bowls in the last 7 seasons that he's played. That's an extremely impressive statistic which shows that has the ability to routinely take his team deep in the playoffs.

    When I criticize him in this thread, I'm doing it solely form the viewpoint of what is expected of someone who is in the running to be the best ever. He's obviously had a top 5 all time career, maybe even higher than that. But he could have been considered the very best ever if just one of these last two Super Bowls goes a bit differently. As a fan of his and as a fan of the Colts, I hate that it didn't work out better for him, but it is what it is. If we win that 09 championship, then we would have had 2 out of 4, which would have been a mini-dynasty in today's NFL. It wouldn't be the same as New England's 3 in 4, but it would have been the same as Pitt's 2 out 4. That Saints game is haunting because it was very winnable. As far Sunday's game is concerned, it was a missed opportunity to complete the greatest quarterbacking season in history and add an extremely impressive late career ring to his resume'. These missed opportunities are why it's hard to rank him as the very best ever.

    Comment


    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

      Originally posted by pogi View Post
      I'm not talking about completion% and TD's stats...I'm talking about when Peyton gets pressured and has an "Oh $h!t!!!" moment and throws a "duck" that turns into in interception. And I'm not saying no other QB has EVER had that moment. But most GREAT QB's improvise and either check-down, throw out of bounds, or run. I've seen Peyton, many times, throw right into coverage and then have a dejected look as his throw turns into a pick-6.
      I'm sure you've also seen him make plenty of plays in the playoffs. Like I've said, we as humans tend to remember the bad times and forget the good ones.

      Take the 2003 post season for example.
      First game against Denver he throws up 41pts on 22-26 for 377yds and 5tds?
      2nd game against Kansas they he wins a 38-31 shootout, 22-30 for 304yds and 3tds?

      Do you remember those games?

      I bet you remember the next game against the Pats where he went 23-47 for 237yds 1td and 4ints.

      Slick likes to mention his one and done's and that makes you look at games like he had in the 2005 postseason against Pitt. The Colts lost 18-21. Peyton was 22-38 290yds and 1td. But it was a loss, so Peyton "choked."
      Or what about 2010 against the Jets when the Colts lost 16-17? Peyton was 18-26 for 225yds and a TD.

      It's really easy to remember the handful of bad examples, or look at a record, and make an opinion. But when you start looking at things with more detail, you'll be surprised at what you find out.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        And about those one and done's. Here are Peyton's collective stats.

        176-302 for 2078yds 10tds and 6ints

        Per game
        22-37.75 58comp% 259.38yds 1.25TDs 0.75INTs

        Out of the 8 games, he threw picks in just 3 of them.

        EDIT: I just went ahead and looked at the other elimination games he's lost

        Collective stats
        4games: 115-183 1088yds 3TDs 8INTs (4 are from one game)

        Per game:
        28.75-45.75 62.48comp% 0.75TD 2INT

        Per game average of all 12 losses
        24.25-40.42 59.99comp% 263.83yds 1.08TDs 1.67INTs

        Yeah, he's had some pretty bad games when they lost, but he's also had some pretty good ones mixed in there.
        Last edited by Since86; 02-04-2014, 03:13 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I'm sure you've also seen him make plenty of plays in the playoffs. Like I've said, we as humans tend to remember the bad times and forget the good ones.

          Take the 2003 post season for example.
          First game against Denver he throws up 41pts on 22-26 for 377yds and 5tds?
          2nd game against Kansas they he wins a 38-31 shootout, 22-30 for 304yds and 3tds?

          Do you remember those games?

          I bet you remember the next game against the Pats where he went 23-47 for 237yds 1td and 4ints.

          Slick likes to mention his one and done's and that makes you look at games like he had in the 2005 postseason against Pitt. The Colts lost 18-21. Peyton was 22-38 290yds and 1td. But it was a loss, so Peyton "choked."
          Or what about 2010 against the Jets when the Colts lost 16-17? Peyton was 18-26 for 225yds and a TD.

          It's really easy to remember the handful of bad examples, or look at a record, and make an opinion. But when you start looking at things with more detail, you'll be surprised at what you find out.
          And were Kansas City and Denver considered defensive stalwarts at that time? Exactly....NO!! They were not. So that has no correlation to my argument whatsoever. I never said Peyton has never won a playoff game, nor has never, in his life, beat a good defensive playoff team. What I have been saying is that MOST OF THE TIME, in other words...alot, multiple, various, many....he's made a rookie-type dumb throw at crucial times in playoff games.

          And by the way, what was, I believe, the last offensive possession on that Jets game? If memory serves me right, it was Peyton throwing an interception.

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            Originally posted by pogi View Post
            And were Kansas City and Denver considered defensive stalwarts at that time? Exactly....NO!! They were not. So that has no correlation to my argument whatsoever. I never said Peyton has never won a playoff game, nor has never, in his life, beat a good defensive playoff team. What I have been saying is that MOST OF THE TIME, in other words...alot, multiple, various, many....he's made a rookie-type dumb throw at crucial times in playoff games.

            And by the way, what was, I believe, the last offensive possession on that Jets game? If memory serves me right, it was Peyton throwing an interception.

            Well your memory sucks because if you're referring to the last game Manning had as a Colt the Colts had the lead on an Vinateri FG then Cromartie had a kickoff return and Caldwell called that awful timeout and the Jets kicked us out of the playoffs.

            He never turned the ball over in that game.

            Comment


            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

              I still get irritated when I think about that stupid loss to the Jets, especially since it was the last game of Manning's Indy career.

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                Originally posted by pogi View Post
                And by the way, what was, I believe, the last offensive possession on that Jets game? If memory serves me right, it was Peyton throwing an interception.
                No, Manning set up a field goal that should have easily won the game. Then special teams and Caldwell blew it, allowing the Jets to make a field goal to win.

                Can't blame that one on Manning. He played a pretty solid game against an elite defense and put together a field goal drive which should have won the game. This was also at a point where the injury obviously had to be getting to him.

                Comment


                • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                  Originally posted by pogi View Post
                  And were Kansas City and Denver considered defensive stalwarts at that time? Exactly....NO!! They were not. So that has no correlation to my argument whatsoever. I never said Peyton has never won a playoff game, nor has never, in his life, beat a good defensive playoff team. What I have been saying is that MOST OF THE TIME, in other words...alot, multiple, various, many....he's made a rookie-type dumb throw at crucial times in playoff games.

                  And by the way, what was, I believe, the last offensive possession on that Jets game? If memory serves me right, it was Peyton throwing an interception.
                  This is the first time you've ever mentioned defensive stalwart in any of the conversation, so there's no correlation of that to your point to begin with.

                  If Manning was making rookie mistakes MOST OF THE TIME, then how do you not have stats to reflect that? Stats quantify on-field production. They give something tangible to what we see with our eyes.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    Here's a link to Peyton's playoff game log. You can even click on the date the game happened and get the box score with a play-by-play.

                    http://www.pro-football-reference.co.../gamelog/post/

                    There's surely got to be something in there that can backup the contention that Manning is choking MOST OF THE TIME.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      Well your memory sucks because if you're referring to the last game Manning had as a Colt the Colts had the lead on an Vinateri FG then Cromartie had a kickoff return and Caldwell called that awful timeout and the Jets kicked us out of the playoffs.

                      He never turned the ball over in that game.
                      I apologize for being wrong about that particular game. And it seems I've struck a nerve

                      Comment


                      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                        Originally posted by pogi View Post
                        I apologize for being wrong about that particular game. And it seems I've struck a nerve
                        Its about being accurate you were so sure it actually happened despite the fact it never did I mean its one thing to criticize but at least base it on something that happened.

                        And by the way, what was, I believe, the last offensive possession on that Jets game? If memory serves me right, it was Peyton throwing an interception.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          This is the first time you've ever mentioned defensive stalwart in any of the conversation, so there's no correlation of that to your point to begin with.
                          Is this the best you can come up with? Did you only read half the thread and decided to post? Because if you did read my posts, you'll see that the whole gist of my conversation is that Peyton has a tendency to get rattled and make a dum-dum kinda throw. You can't deny that. You may try to come back with " well, every QB has made a mistake or two....blasé, blasé," but That doesn't change the fact that he made questionable throws in big games. And you can't put every one of those on good defense, or the receiver ran the wrong route, or whatever other excuse people tried to come up with. For example, in the Super Bowl, he threw one pass completely over the head of a wide open receiver and right into the hands of a defender. Those are type of plays that he's known for from a lot of people outside the circle of Colts and now Broncos fans.



                          If Manning was making rookie mistakes MOST OF THE TIME, then how do you not have stats to reflect that? Stats quantify on-field production. They give something tangible to what we see with our eyes.
                          Do you only study stats? Because guess what....stats don't tell the whole story. Even if a QB throws for 500 yards and 4 td's, yet on the last drive he throws into double or triple coverage and it ends up intercepted for a touchdown, I'll still say that was a stupid throw. Regardless of stats or how we'll he's done, or what ever stats he had for the game.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            Sorry for maybe beating a dead horse, but ...this is kind of an interesting observation made by former NFL journeyman tight end Jermaine Wiggins, a nine year NFL vet and now a radio talk show host.

                            On the game-opening safety, all 5 defense offensive linemen fired off the line immediately at the snap of the ball. According to Wiggins, this is the tell-tale sign of the quarterback forgetting his snap count. It wasn't the center not hearing the QB (he did take the blame for it though), because all 5 people heard the same thing and reacted at the same time. The only other reasonable possibility is that Peyton barked a signal to change the snap count and nobody heard it.

                            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

                              Originally posted by pogi View Post
                              Is this the best you can come up with? Did you only read half the thread and decided to post? Because if you did read my posts, you'll see that the whole gist of my conversation is that Peyton has a tendency to get rattled and make a dum-dum kinda throw. You can't deny that. You may try to come back with " well, every QB has made a mistake or two....blasé, blasé," but That doesn't change the fact that he made questionable throws in big games. And you can't put every one of those on good defense, or the receiver ran the wrong route, or whatever other excuse people tried to come up with. For example, in the Super Bowl, he threw one pass completely over the head of a wide open receiver and right into the hands of a defender. Those are type of plays that he's known for from a lot of people outside the circle of Colts and now Broncos fans.
                              We agree on the bolded, as that's what you said and meant. Notice that it says nothing about the level of defense. You simply said playoffs, so I gave you playoff stats, and then you started talking about stalwart defenses. That's moving the goalposts. If you meant stalwart defense, that's fine just say you forgot to put in in there and we can move forward, but don't leave it out, and then blame me and my reading skills.





                              Originally posted by pogi View Post
                              Do you only study stats? Because guess what....stats don't tell the whole story. Even if a QB throws for 500 yards and 4 td's, yet on the last drive he throws into double or triple coverage and it ends up intercepted for a touchdown, I'll still say that was a stupid throw. Regardless of stats or how we'll he's done, or what ever stats he had for the game.
                              Well apparently your memory doesn't tell the whole story either, so I guess we're just stuck.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                We agree on the bolded, as that's what you said and meant. Notice that it says nothing about the level of defense. You simply said playoffs, so I gave you playoff stats, and then you started talking about stalwart defenses. That's moving the goalposts. If you meant stalwart defense, that's fine just say you forgot to put in in there and we can move forward, but don't leave it out, and then blame me and my reading skills.
                                I think that was the part of me that started typing without rereading, because, I had that in my head almost the whole thread.







                                Well apparently your memory doesn't tell the whole story either, so I guess we're just stuck.
                                I will agree with that, as my old lifestyle has rapidly caught up with me. But I just wanted to give my final statement on the subject and say that personally, what I was getting at, was that even if you put up mind-boggling stats, if you caused the mistake that turns or loses the game, I will hold you accountable as a fan. And I was also trying to explain, that IMO, Peyton had many boo-boo moments. But don't get me wrong, I still loved the guy. He brought Indy our only NFL championship and made us nationally known, and I wouldn't of traded his years with us for any other QB. Yeah, I wished we would've won at least one more ring during his time, but there's nothing we can do about it now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X