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

2014 Non-Colts Thread

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

  • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
    I have heard people in the media (not many, but some) crack jokes about RG3 and his inability to stay healthy. This is pathetic and sad. Even RG3's biggest critic should never wish this upon the guy.

    I haven't heard anyone do that. I'm not happy that he's injured.

    I've never felt he was truly near as good as he sold everyone on back in 2012, that he's not physically built for the NFL. He received and soaked in a lot of undue credit and adulation that year... and that soured me on him, regarding how he carried himself, he was not humble. I don't like it when people act like he did, like he's the Second Coming, there was way too much attention-seeking, and when I watched him play, he lacked in so much that a lot of people apparently missed because they were so star-struck. So no, I didn't particularly care for how he acted, on top of the fact I didn't think he was very good, and you can say what you want, but basically everything I said about him has come true. Coupled with that gimmick offense that took the league by surprise (and the league would've and has caught up to it), and it made out for fool's good, and so many people bought it.

    The injuries are unfortunate, but I also am not surprised at all, based on his build and his style of play. It was never going to work in this league, long-term. He didn't have the pocket-passing game down near as well as he needed to and once that scramble game was lost to him, it was going to be downhill from there, and that is exactly what is happening. We're never going to see 2012 again. He was never the pocket-passer that Cousins is, and that's why I said Cousins is a better long-term QB for them... I'm not saying Cousins will be elite... just saying better than RG3. Cousins has the tools to be a very good QB in this league... unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the 'Skins organization to take advantage of it, but here's hoping they do.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-15-2014, 11:38 AM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      I talked some crap about Eli before, but from what I saw yesterday he honestly played pretty damn well. The rest of the team just SUCKS. That's why I think he'll be gone, Giants are in for a major rebuild and neither Eli nor the Giants have time for that. I don't know what his contract's like but I wouldn't blame the guy for demanding his release after this year.
      Next year his contract is up I think he'll be back next season at least.

      Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
      Just imagine how things are different if the Colts decide to keep Manning, and traded the #1 pick to the Redskins...the league would be totally different now. For the Colts sake I believe they made the right decision but it is interesting to debate.
      I agree but I also don't buy that the team would be a complete dud if Manning stayed either as much as Irsay says it would've. I mean we made the playoffs Andrew's first year there had to be something there still we just needed a good QB.
      Last edited by Basketball Fan; 09-15-2014, 07:57 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread



        http://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/577675

        There still are some good guys left in the NFL.

        Washington Redskins wide receiver Pierre Garçon delivered a wheelchair-accessible van to a high school student suffering from cerebral palsy on Friday.

        Per the Centreville Independent, high school student Juwaan Espinal's condition made going to the grocery store an impossible task, while lifting him from his wheelchair became a consistently strenuous activity for his mother, Ibis Banks.

        On Friday, Garçon arrived at Centreville High School in Clifton, Va., and presented a wheelchair-accessible van to Espinal at halftime of the school's football game.

        “It was overwhelming,” Banks said. “I have no words … It’s going to make a difference for Juwaan.”

        The Redskins star was more than happy to help.

        “Dealing with such an unfortunate situation at such a young age is very sad. It was definitely one of those stories that impacts you," Garçon said.

        Comment


        • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
          I agree but I also don't buy that the team would be a complete dud if Manning stayed either as much as Irsay says it would've. I mean we made the playoffs Andrew's first year there had to be something there still we just needed a good QB.
          Any team with Peyton would be a contender and the Colts would have been no different. We could have auctioned the pick off for a king's ransom and netted Manning a nice bundle of assets to finish his career with. Personally, I think passing on Luck to keep Manning would have only been worth it if we would have won another Super Bowl. I don't think that we could have built a team better than what Denver had last year, so I don't think we would have won a Super Bowl in each of the previous two years had we kept Peyton. That being said, we would have been a really good team that was in contention.

          Manning has shown that keeping him certainly wouldn't have been a bad move. He looks better as time has marched on since he first started with Denver. The increase in arm strength is very noticeable.

          Comment


          • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
            I have heard people in the media (not many, but some) crack jokes about RG3 and his inability to stay healthy. This is pathetic and sad. Even RG3's biggest critic should never wish this upon the guy.
            I agree. I am a big RG3 critic, but I like the guy. I hope he does well, but I knew he wasn't going to be good in the NFL. He just doesn't fit the mold
            Smothered Chicken!

            Comment


            • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

              John Abraham's 36 and has "severe memory loss," got concussed week 1, and is trying to keep playing. He surely knows all the ramifications and it's his body and all, but c'mon man.

              Comment


              • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread


                Comment


                • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  John Abraham's 36 and has "severe memory loss," got concussed week 1, and is trying to keep playing. He surely knows all the ramifications and it's his body and all, but c'mon man.
                  I'm not feeling all warm and fuzzy about Wes Welker coming back from his 3rd concussion in under a year, going right up against the Seahawks.

                  He's a tough little guy, but the since-overturned 4 game suspension had almost seemed like it was going to be for his own good.
                  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: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                    Honestly, with all of these issues that the NFL is going through, why is Goodell being absent? If this was happening in the NBA, Silver would be taking charge. Same for Selig and the MLB. Goodell needs to go, this just places the case for his departure. Goodell has done some really good things for the NFL, but this is just an embarrassment.
                    Smothered Chicken!

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                      Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                      Honestly, with all of these issues that the NFL is going through, why is Goodell being absent? If this was happening in the NBA, Silver would be taking charge. Same for Selig and the MLB. Goodell needs to go, this just places the case for his departure. Goodell has done some really good things for the NFL, but this is just an embarrassment.
                      Yeah, not so much. This is a 2013 article, FYI.

                      Three NBA players arrested in three days, all for 'assaulting their girlfriends'

                      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3DgksOXhx
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Yeah, not so much. This is a 2013 article, FYI.
                        fair, but Goodell needs to take charge. Maybe not Silver, but Stern would come in fix the issues immediately
                        Smothered Chicken!

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                          Remember when Kobe was charged with rape back in 2003? Remember how he was then able to play an entire season before the charges were ultimately dropped a year later?

                          Were people saying that Stern needed to be fired for allowing Kobe to continue to play? Of course not.

                          The Ray Rice case was very unique because you had two videos - one outside the elevator which strongly implied that something sinister happened, and other from inside the elevator that confirmed it. However, 99% of the time, you aren't going to have video evidence of this sort of thing because it will have taken place behind closed doors. But the media and society have now pushed this "guilty until proven innocent" train of thought into the NFL. 11 years ago, Kobe was charged with sexual assault and is allowed to continue his career while the legal process plays out. Today, Adrian Peterson is charged with felony child abuse and his career immediately comes to a halt.

                          The Rice case was unique and obviously bungled by the NFL, but I'm just not sure that this "guilty until proven innocent" mindset that can ultimately derail careers is what's best.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Remember when Kobe was charged with rape back in 2003? Remember how he was then able to play an entire season before the charges were ultimately dropped a year later?

                            Were people saying that Stern needed to be fired for allowing Kobe to continue to play? Of course not.

                            The Ray Rice case was very unique because you had two videos - one outside the elevator which strongly implied that something sinister happened, and other from inside the elevator that confirmed it. However, 99% of the time, you aren't going to have video evidence of this sort of thing because it will have taken place behind closed doors. But the media and society have now pushed this "guilty until proven innocent" train of thought into the NFL. 11 years ago, Kobe was charged with sexual assault and is allowed to continue his career while the legal process plays out. Today, Adrian Peterson is charged with felony child abuse and his career immediately comes to a halt.

                            The Rice case was unique and obviously bungled by the NFL, but I'm just not sure that this "guilty until proven innocent" mindset that can ultimately derail careers is what's best.
                            Roger Goodell needs to be fired for much more than just this one incident.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Roger Goodell needs to be fired for much more than just this one incident.
                              Why? He has helped make a bajillion dollars for his bosses. I'm not a fan of some of the rule changes, but when you're getting the hell sued out of you, you have to react.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X