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
    Ugh! Even though I hate USC he did set them back years with those violations and pretty much threw everyone under the bus and now he gets rewarded. Shows karma doesn't really exist.

    Beyond that Seattle doesn't bother me although I can see why they would hate Richard Sherman etc.

    But really this is just a wasted season for Manning. Seriously all that for nothing.
    Yeah, I know, definitely a dick move by him to bail on them after he got them into that mess, but that's major college football for you. He's pretty charismatic and seems like he would be a good coach to play for, so I don't particularly mind him.

    Comment


    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Why should the media let him live it down? The only thing worse than Manning's performance was the Bronco's team performance.

      Manning has arm strength issues, and questionable decision-making in big games. The Seahawks went right after him, hard, and he and the entire team folded.

      I was referring to his career not necessarily this game yes he picked the worst time to play his worst game but the AFC is a weak conference they can get to the SB but they need to be built like an NFC team to win the whole thing.

      Yes he's getting older it is interesting you think he has questionable decision making when just two weeks ago he played a great game against the Pats in the AFC title game apparently that wasn't a big one(yes I know not as big as the SB) but people pick and choose which games he's in that are great versus those that aren't. That's what bugs me I mean if you think he sucks or isn't the GOAT just say so. I'm annoyed when they talk about how he has to win (insert big game) in order to validate his career because apparently the past 16 years weren't enough apparently. But come next season they will continue this lame narrative.

      I do think Pete Carroll is a good coach I don't like or really respect the guy. I mean if Seattle won back in SB 40(like they probably should've) I would've been far happier for them.
      Last edited by Basketball Fan; 02-02-2014, 11:38 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        Irsay has got to be feeling pretty vindicated right now.
        Pinball numbers led to nothing but a crushing big game defeat to a team that plays defense and more balanced.
        Yep I just hope he doesn't tweet anything about this even though you know how thrilled he was to see Manning lose.

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          There are some similarities between Pags and Carroll as far as being player first coaches so hopefully the Colts can win with him in charge.

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            I don't see how Manning getting to the Super Bowl and having the statistically best season of his career means Irsay is vindicated with anything, speaking as someone who supports the new direction.

            Are people really saying Peyton not winning a Super Bowl here makes the season a failure? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Yes it's a gut wrenching ending but it doesn't negate the wins the Broncos had this season, including the Playoffs. Had they lost to San Diego or New England perhaps, but like I said, there's no shame in losing to a better team. Now the performance they put out from top to bottom was a shameful but it does happen in one game playoff situations.

            Comment


            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

              Originally posted by Ransom View Post
              I don't see how Manning getting to the Super Bowl and having the statistically best season of his career means Irsay is vindicated with anything, speaking as someone who supports the new direction.

              Are people really saying Peyton not winning a Super Bowl here makes the season a failure? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Yes it's a gut wrenching ending but it doesn't negate the wins the Broncos had this season, including the Playoffs. Had they lost to San Diego or New England perhaps, but like I said, there's no shame in losing to a better team. Now the performance they put out from top to bottom was a shameful but it does happen in one game playoff situations.

              The goal is to win an SB all those records are worthless if you aren't hoisting the Lombardi so yes it does justify Irsay's decision. Of course even if the Broncos won it was still the right decision I just hate Irsay's revisionist history on the whole thing you dumped Manning because you didn't think you would get another SB out of him and he wasn't worth the price. Don't tell me you let him go as a favor to him that's just garbage. Owners are out for themselves(rightfully so) anything else is lipservice.

              Unfortunately though it will be less about how Seattle deserved to win and more about how Manning failed which is rather unfair to Seattle.

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                Yes he's getting older it is interesting you think he has questionable decision making when just two weeks ago he played a great game against the Pats in the AFC title game apparently that wasn't a big one(yes I know not as big as the SB) but people pick and choose which games he's in that are great versus those that aren't.
                It's not every big game, it's just too many of them that it happens.

                If enough people tell someone that they have a tail eventually a person needs to quit denying it and instead turn around and take a look.
                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

                  He's not perfect obviously but you need to be a complete team to win an SB and while Denver can put on an offensive show Seattle is a far more complete team in comparison at least based on today's game. Denver reminded me of the past Manning teams here live and die by the QB unfortunately Manning picked the worst time to have his worst game.

                  The real SB was the NFC title game.

                  If anything I think whoever won the AFC was going to end up getting owned by the NFC representative anyways.

                  It just bothers me that despite winning an SB he's going to be considered a choker and his career is worthless for only having one SB ring when there are many QBs who don't even have one and just yesterday he was going to be the GOAT. Its the overreaction that I don't get I mean if you don't think he's great that's fine I mean we all have our opinions.

                  Its not easy to win an SB despite what the media tells you.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Peyton most certainly did not play fine...the whole team was terrible sure. That includes him unfortunately.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        He's not perfect obviously but you need to be a complete team to win an SB and while Denver can put on an offensive show Seattle is a far more complete team in comparison at least based on today's game. Denver reminded me of the past Manning teams here live and die by the QB unfortunately Manning picked the worst time to have his worst game.

                        The real SB was the NFC title game.

                        If anything I think whoever won the AFC was going to end up getting owned by the NFC representative anyways.

                        It just bothers me that despite winning an SB he's going to be considered a choker and his career is worthless for only having one SB ring when there are many QBs who don't even have one and just yesterday he was going to be the GOAT. Its the overreaction that I don't get I mean if you don't think he's great that's fine I mean we all have our opinions.

                        Its not easy to win an SB despite what the media tells you.

                        Seattle was definitely a more complete team, but they absolutely should not have been a more complete team on a 43-8 level. These were two 13-3 teams, one of which had one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. This game came down to execution, not skill level. Denver was PLENTY talented enough to win this game. Seattle wanted it more all night long while Denver had a pathetic dear in their headlights look from the start. The Broncos completely crapped their pants in all three phases of the game. Seattle gets all of the credit in the world for obviously making Denver scared, but Denver's effort and execution was quite frankly pathetic. The Colts beat the Seahawks. The Seahawks are obviously great, but this should not have been a 43-8 game under any circumstances.

                        And no one on the planet is ever going to say that Manning's career is worthless. Everyone agrees that he is a top 5 or 10 QB of all time, and most would probably say 5 at this point. But he simply hasn't quite executed at a level to be the very best. He has had two opportunities to win a second Super Bowl ring, but just didn't get the job done. Four years ago he threw a catastrophic pick six against the Saints. Tonight his offense put up just 8 points. Sure the Broncos entire team was hideous tonight, but he was pretty bad himself. Manning is a top 5 all time quarterback IMO, but he just hasn't done enough with his Super Bowl opportunities to be considered the best.

                        As far as this Seattle D is concerned, I think they are maybe the best of all time when you factor in how the current rules overwhelmingly favor the offensive side of the ball.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-03-2014, 12:36 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          Originally posted by travmil View Post
                          Peyton most certainly did not play fine...the whole team was terrible sure. That includes him unfortunately.
                          He did fine with what he had. A QB cant make a guy block or catch the ball. Get open or even run to the right spot

                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Seattle was definitely a more complete team, but they absolutely should not have been a more complete team on a 43-8 level. These were two 13-3 teams, one of which had one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. This game came down to execution. Seattle wanted it more all night long while Denver had a pathetic dear in their headlights look all game. The Broncos completely crapped their pants in all three phases of the game. Seattle gets all of the credit in the world for obviously making Denver scared, but Denver's effort and execution was quite frankly pathetic. The Colts beat the Seahawks. The Seahawks are obviously great, but this should not have been a 43-8 game under any circumstances.

                            And no one on the planet is ever going to say that Manning's career is worthless. Everyone agrees that he is a top 5 or 10 QB of all time, and most would probably say 5 at this point. But he simply hasn't quite executed at a level to be the very best. He has had two opportunities to win a second Super Bowl ring, but just didn't get the job done. Four years ago he threw a catastrophic pick six against the Saints. Tonight his offense put up just 8 points. Sure the Broncos entire team was hideous tonight, but he was pretty bad himself. Manning is a top 5 all time quarterback IMO, but he just hasn't done enough with his Super Bowl opportunities to be considered the best.

                            As far as this Seattle D is concerned, I think they are maybe the best of all time when you factor in how the current rules overwhelmingly favor the offensive side of the ball.

                            There's no such thing as the GOAT but because Manning has only 1 ring his career will be considered worthless because despite all the records and MVPs he only has one ring when the goal is to have well more than 1 ring. Its how its going to be perceived even if it isn't reality.

                            I mean this season was such a waste all that and to play the worst game of your career on the biggest stage his career will be considered a fraud.

                            I don't agree with that but its going to be portrayed as such why people act like it won't is beyond me.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              There's no such thing as the GOAT but because Manning has only 1 ring his career will be considered worthless because despite all the records and MVPs he only has one ring when the goal is to have well more than 1 ring. Its how its going to be perceived even if it isn't reality.

                              I mean this season was such a waste all that and to play the worst game of your career on the biggest stage his career will be considered a fraud.

                              I don't agree with that but its going to be portrayed as such why people act like it won't is beyond me.
                              He only has one ring because he didn't play well enough in the two other Super Bowls to get a second . I get that there is no official GOAT ranking or anything like that, but these are legit criticisms. He just simply has not executed at a high enough level on the biggest stage to be considered the best by most people who follow the sport closely and care to debate such things.

                              Peyton has had his opportunities. It's not as if he's played on weak teams his entire career. This guy has played in three Super Bowls, but simply didn't get the job done in two of them. He played OK against New Orleans up until the crushing pick 6, but he was downright awful tonight. No one is saying that the guy's career is worthless, but these are legit criticisms.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                20 minutes ago




                                good thing it's fairly warm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X