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

Non-Colts thread

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

  • Re: Non-Colts thread

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    The Steelers were known first and foremost for the "Steel Curtain"....
    Which makes it more absurd that the QB gets most of the credit(and blame) to begin with I guess because its the star position its part of the job description.

    I mean Manning has a ring but without Bob Sanders or Marlin intercepting Brady, Adam pretty much scoring all our points vs Baltimore he'd be ringless like Marino right about now.

    Comment


    • Re: Non-Colts thread

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
      I said it was relative but this is the argument people use against Kobe even if he were to tie Michael Jordan with six rings well Jordan never lost in the NBA Finals but Kobe has already lost 2 despite appearing in more Finals than Jordan has.
      and that is an equally illogical argument

      league championships are most important, but conference championships are next most important

      I know 49er fans who think that their organization is the best because they have never ever lost in a Super Bowl. Which would mean that if their team had lost yesterday, it apparently would be a far better outcome than winning yesterday, winning next Sunday, and then losing on Feb 3.



      And nobody ever mentions Terry Bradshaw who has just as many rings as Montana but isn't considered a GOAT despite it. Which is why the ring argument doesn't merit much to me.
      The ring argument, by itself, makes no sense to anyone. It is applied to Manning vs. Brady since we are talking about two QBs who, before you ever mention rings, have set all kinds of records and have amassed incredible individual statistics.

      Terry Bradshaw won a championship in a season when his passer rating was 55.2. As a point of reference, last year Curtis Painter's passer rating was 66.6. Rules favor passing now so I am not saying Bradshaw was the equal of Painter or vice versa, but in no way was he head and shoulders above his peers in individual stats either.

      He performed amazingly well on the biggest stage, had career best games in Super Bowls, and deserved his HOF induction, but even his profile at Steelers. com has some brutal honesty:

      ... Bradshaw was seen as somehow different. He just did not seem to have the right stuff. He was talented enough. No one in the league threw a more powerful pass than Bradshaw, who could sting a receiver's hands 50 yards downfield. At 6 feet 3 inches and 220 pounds, he was the ideal size and he was naturally gifted, all right. But he was a little rough around the edges. After eight NFL seasons, he still had not been selected to a Pro Bowl.

      (For his first 5 seasons) even his coach, Chuck Noll, doubted Bradshaw on occasion, benching him at various times for Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam...
      http://www.steelers.com/history/thre...-bradshaw.html
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-14-2013, 08:53 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: Non-Colts thread

        Comment


        • Re: Non-Colts thread

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          The Steelers were known first and foremost for the "Steel Curtain"....
          I didn't realize I started the arugment in another thread. (maybe it was already on going)

          You can't give credit to anyone other than the QB. What they do is the only thing that matter if a team wins or not. I'm being sarcastic, but it's hard to understand how a defense can get credit for one team winning one SB while the defense isn't any part of the discussion for another.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Non-Colts thread

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            .. and a coach that was not hindered even by the existence of a salary cap.

            There is a reason why teams cannot stay at the top these days. The Patriots have only 22 players on their roster who were on the team just two years ago. That sort of continual roster upheaval, in large part to manage spending, was unheard of in the early 1980s.
            You know as well as I do that they gutted the team of previous picks due to under performing players.

            Are you trying to say that only the 49ers had a continuous roster in the 80's. Joe Montana's success wasn't about being able to retain 49er talent while other teams flondered to keep their roster together. The NFL rules effect everyone the same but you can still keep your most important players in todays NFL.

            Likewise I can say that the addition of 4 teams diluted the talent of the teams in todays NFL and made it easier to succeed in if you already had the most important cogs already in place like the Pats did.

            Would Tom Brady have survived as a pocket passer for 10 years in the 80's to even win 4 superbowls? ITs tough to say but I have seen Tom react to getting hit hard on a continuous basis and his stats go south real quick. I am not even sure he even comes back from that ACL tear he had in 08 if it happened in the 80's.

            Point is when you have a coach that revolutionizes the NFL and you have a player playing in a tougher age of football I tend to lean on that more than breaking passing stats or post season appearances.

            Comment


            • Re: Non-Colts thread

              The reality is that you do have to gut your roster not just for underperforming players and to make room for youth, but also for players that outperform what you have budgeted to pay them. That is something that teams in the early 80s did not have to deal with at all.

              Want examples?

              When BenJarvis Green-Ellis ran for 1,000 yards two years ago, you knew his price would go up when he hit free agency, so he's a Bengal now. Ridley developed nicely, but his 1,200 yard year actually is now a concern-- he may price himself out of staying in NE when his rookie contract ends. Vereen went crazy vs. Houston and that may even be good news/ bad news with respect to his value.

              Welker is the Pats 3rd best offensive player after Brady and Gronk but wants 9 million and 4 years. The Pats don't want to write that check because of the cap. Will they work something out? I hope so. In the 80s you'd write the check with no worries.

              Trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders left a gaping hole on the D-line that wasn't really filled until this year. It was a totally salary-driven move that hurt the team for 2 seasons.

              Dan Koppen, Brandon Meriweather, James Sanders - these are all salary cap cuts, not for talent but for dollar reasons.

              It is much harder to build and keep a core of even a dozen players today. One can say that it's true for all the competition as well, so maybe just the level of depth and consistency across the league is less than it used to be.
              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: Non-Colts thread

                I do think a key aspect of succeeding in the NFL today is being willing to be priced out on a player you'd ideally like to keep. That's really a great point. It's hard to argue against how the Pats have managed their budget.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • Re: Non-Colts thread

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  The reality is that you do have to gut your roster not just for underperforming players and to make room for youth, but also for players that outperform what you have budgeted to pay them. That is something that teams in the early 80s did not have to deal with at all.

                  Want examples?

                  When BenJarvis Green-Ellis ran for 1,000 yards two years ago, you knew his price would go up when he hit free agency, so he's a Bengal now. Ridley developed nicely, but his 1,200 yard year actually is now a concern-- he may price himself out of staying in NE when his rookie contract ends. Vereen went crazy vs. Houston and that may even be good news/ bad news with respect to his value.

                  Welker is the Pats 3rd best offensive player after Brady and Gronk but wants 9 million and 4 years. The Pats don't want to write that check because of the cap. Will they work something out? I hope so. In the 80s you'd write the check with no worries.

                  Trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders left a gaping hole on the D-line that wasn't really filled until this year. It was a totally salary-driven move that hurt the team for 2 seasons.

                  Dan Koppen, Brandon Meriweather, James Sanders - these are all salary cap cuts, not for talent but for dollar reasons.

                  It is much harder to build and keep a core of even a dozen players today. One can say that it's true for all the competition as well, so maybe just the level of depth and consistency across the league is less than it used to be.
                  I am not denying that the roster turnover has increased due to the salary cap. There really isn't arguement there however when you consider every teams has to do it just like every team in the 1980's could hold on to their key players much longer which would aid in tougher competition across the board.

                  The key has always been to obtain a franchise QB and maintain key players on defense and offense. Is it slightly different? Sure but I don't think its a huge advantage as the penality changes for the QB and WR have been.

                  Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                  I do think a key aspect of succeeding in the NFL today is being willing to be priced out on a player you'd ideally like to keep. That's really a great point. It's hard to argue against how the Pats have managed their budget.
                  Sure managing the salary cap is important now but no one prices you out of the players you have to have. Jerry Rice and Montana and Lott would have gone nowhere if they played in todays NFL.
                  Last edited by Gamble1; 01-15-2013, 03:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Non-Colts thread

                    back to the present....

                    Patriots with Rob Gronkowski on/off field in 2012 regular season

                    Stat---------------On------------Off
                    Comp. pct.--------65.7 ----------58.4
                    Yards per play-----6.0------------5.4
                    passing TD-INT----23-3----------11-6

                    I suppose the analysis can be tempered by looking at the defenses of the teams played, but the Pats don't make up for not having him, and the sample size is about even (half a season each way)

                    They try, and some other things can work well, but it is still "making do with less". Passing TDs are I assume replaced with a bump in rushing TDs, because there's no way that scoring was cut in half.

                    I think making do with less can beat the Ravens and (if they got there) the Falcons. The Niners? Tougher road to hoe for sure.
                    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

                    Working...
                    X