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

    Be safe: there's a warning out on Papa John's pizzas.

    Choking Hazard.

    Especially the new six topping special (the pick six)






    too soon?
    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

      And Pats fans wonder why people think they are a-holes.

      Besides I don't know how any Pats fan can talk about choking when they went undefeated and lost the SB against a team they were favored to beat by 14 points.

      Comment


      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

        joke (jōk)
        n.
        1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
        2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
        3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
        4. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
        5. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.



        equal time:

        Did you hear that Tom Brady couldn't be present for the birth of his son?

        Yes, but it's OK. Belichick made sure that somebody videotaped it for him.

        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-03-2014, 04:17 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

          And yet it would be considered trolling considering you're in a forum on a team the said QB was once the face of.

          It would be like me going to a Celtics or Pats forum mocking Tom Brady after his SB losses. I could do that but really what would be the point? I don't like Tom or anything Boston related and I'd be nothing but a troll if I did that.

          That's the difference.

          Comment


          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I think the Colts helped give teams a great blueprint of how to beat this Denver team. We hit Manning, flustered him, and our healthy defensive backs jammed Denver's receivers and limited their YAC's, which is how they succeed against other teams. This is why I have a lot of faith in Pags as a head coach. Seattle did a lot of what we did, just with a more talented team.

            Still, there is just no excuse for a 43-8 whooping. None. Not on this level. Peyton's body language after the safety made it seem like the safety was worth 20 points instead of 2. That team just immediately looked flustered. I've never seen such pathetic execution. I guarantee that the Colts would have put up way more of a fight last night, as would about any other team.

            You nailed it. Something I noticed his whole playoff career with the Colts. He always made me nervous and non confident with his body language and demeanor during high pressure games. I thought maybe he had matured enough and played through enough playoff games now that that had all but disappeared, but I didn't really believe it. Unfortunately, last night proved my theory even more. Feel bad for him though.

            Comment


            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              They hyped up Dan Marino as well along with various other athletes but again.....
              That's exactly what I mean. He gets so hyped up (more than any other athlete other than Lebron) that he's EXPECTED to win. Anything less is failure.

              Another point I was trying to make with the 'look through the eyes of average fan' bit was think if you're not a Peyton fan, yet, you're a fan of football. Almost half the commercials that has an athlete is a Peyton Mannning commercical. He breaks all these records and is revered by most sports analysts and columnists everywhere. But on numerous occasions he comes up short. Or, in other words, what if the media was shoving someone like Philip Rivers down our throat. Being talked about constantly, and have a zillion commercials. Has productive seasons, yet, doesn't even come close to reaching a super bowl. You can't tell me at some point you start thinking he's overrated. Especially, if he goes one-and-done several times, gets completely shut-out and blown-out in the same game... and when finally makes it to the big dance, makes rookie-esque mistakes. And it's not like say....Barry Sanders...where he's considered one of the greatest, but didn't have a chance; Peyton has had multiple chances. Chris Carter was on Mike and Mike about a week ago, and they were talking about Peyton's lagacy, and if he deserves criticism. Carter said yes. And when he was questioned compared to other QBs, Carter said, "yeah, but Peyton always had one, if not THE, top offenses, and still came up short many times.

              Comment


              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                Originally posted by pogi View Post
                That's exactly what I mean. He gets so hyped up (more than any other athlete other than Lebron) that he's EXPECTED to win. Anything less is failure.

                Another point I was trying to make with the 'look through the eyes of average fan' bit was think if you're not a Peyton fan, yet, you're a fan of football. Almost half the commercials that has an athlete is a Peyton Mannning commercical. He breaks all these records and is revered by most sports analysts and columnists everywhere. But on numerous occasions he comes up short. Or, in other words, what if the media was shoving someone like Philip Rivers down our throat. Being talked about constantly, and have a zillion commercials. Has productive seasons, yet, doesn't even come close to reaching a super bowl. You can't tell me at some point you start thinking he's overrated. Especially, if he goes one-and-done several times, gets completely shut-out and blown-out in the same game... and when finally makes it to the big dance, makes rookie-esque mistakes. And it's not like say....Barry Sanders...where he's considered one of the greatest, but didn't have a chance; Peyton has had multiple chances. Chris Carter was on Mike and Mike about a week ago, and they were talking about Peyton's lagacy, and if he deserves criticism. Carter said yes. And when he was questioned compared to other QBs, Carter said, "yeah, but Peyton always had one, if not THE, top offenses, and still came up short many times.
                Rivers would be overrated based on how he plays not because of the commercials that's just noise to me I don't care about athlete endorsements I mean I don't buy something because a celeb endorses it.

                And offenses don't win championships defenses too. I mean if last night didn't tell you then the 1990 and 1992 Bills, 2001 Rams, 2002 Raiders, 2007 Patriots were also a clue as well.

                The 1999 Rams were probably the exception and they literally won that at the very last second on a defensive play.

                My point is if the pundits think Manning isn't the GOAT or they think he's overrated and should never even be in the conversation that's fine but stick with it and don't put him in the conversation.

                Except they will come September because its the best "storyline" they have I mean really nobody else registers in comparison. Romo perhaps but he can't even make the playoffs. Everyone else is dull to talk about as far as the media is concerned. The narrative has to keep going until he retires then they will be forced to move onto someone else.

                Comment


                • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                  Peyton was awful. Best offense of all time, and he only puts up 8 points. Its the same thing every year in the playoffs with PM.
                  Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                  Comment


                  • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    My point is if the pundits think Manning isn't the GOAT or they think he's overrated and should never even be in the conversation that's fine but stick with it and don't put him in the conversation.
                    But he was playing in a game that would have given him some major ammo in any GOAT debate. How can pundits ignore that?

                    Last night's game absolutely gave him an opportunity to be put in the GOAT conversation. He has the longevity, stats, MVP's, wins, etc., but he only has the one championship. Winning a late career Super Bowl after this record breaking season and comeback from injury would have been a HUGE feather in his cap. So yeah, there was certainly a conversation to be had depending on how he played.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      But he was playing in a game that would have given him some major ammo in any GOAT debate. How can pundits ignore that?

                      Last night's game absolutely gave him an opportunity to be put in the GOAT conversation. He has the longevity, stats, MVP's, wins, etc., but he only has the one championship. Winning a late career Super Bowl after this record breaking season and comeback from injury would have been a HUGE feather in his cap. So yeah, there was certainly a conversation to be had depending on how he played.

                      The same reason they ignored that they said the exact same thing in the last SB loss and yet they went right back and said he needs to win this game to enhance his legacy even though he was supposed to be out of the conversation.

                      If you haven't noticed the pundits contradict themselves all the time. Which is why nothing they say now will matter come Fall.

                      And even if the Broncos had won this game he still wouldn't be in the conversation because no one game would've done that no matter what the pundits say. People will always have their opinions on whether they think he's good or not.

                      All it would've done was made him the 1st NFL QB to win an SB as a starter for two different teams that's pretty much it.

                      Instead they'll talk about how he failed and not how great Seattle was I mean yes he was bad last night but Seattle was incredible too but it will be overshadowed by "Manning is a failure" because its a more interesting storyline than talking about a Seattle team with a dominant defense that doesn't have any real stars (except Sherman although he's been rather restrained since the NFC title game)

                      Comment


                      • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                        Peyton deserves most of the criticism he gets. Without a resurgent run game and defense back in the Super Bowl year, his tenure in Indianapolis is arguably not a complete success (I would say the Super Bowl victory and Peyton's adroit game management in the SB the Colts won makes it a success). Division titles and MVP's are regular season accolades, what matters is the playoffs. You ask nearly anyone in Indy who the Colts beat in the Super Bowl they could tell you. I bet a lot of people in Indy forget the Pacers ever made the NBA Finals 13 years ago and who beat them. TBH that rarely even crosses my mind now.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                          Peyton deserves most of the criticism he gets. Without a resurgent run game and defense back in the Super Bowl year, his tenure in Indianapolis is arguably not a complete success (I would say the Super Bowl victory and Peyton's adroit game management in the SB the Colts won makes it a success). Division titles and MVP's are regular season accolades, what matters is the playoffs. You ask nearly anyone in Indy who the Colts beat in the Super Bowl they could tell you. I bet a lot of people in Indy forget the Pacers ever made the NBA Finals 13 years ago and who beat them. TBH that rarely even crosses my mind now.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                            You just knew this was coming

                            http://t.co/ec49lqA4Eh

                            Comment


                            • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              You just knew this was coming

                              http://t.co/ec49lqA4Eh
                              The title is one thing but the entire article talks about Luck being better....
                              Andrew Luck of the Indianapolis Colts has the complete package.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

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

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Super Bowl Thread

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                The title is one thing but the entire article talks about Luck being better....
                                Except the fact that he won an SB = Is Wilson the best QB of the 2012 draft class was the whole point of the title. I mean I get what you are saying but I don't think winning an SB automatically makes him better and the title is just a headline grabber. I mean Tavaris Jackson has a ring now he's not better than say Matt Hasslebeck.


                                I also don't expect Mike Wells to be too objective either with his Indy ties and all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X