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

Here's my plea

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

  • Re: Here's my plea

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

    Count your blessings people.

    Agreed. I feel very lucky to root for this franchise. They gave me the best sports memory ever six years ago and have been a pleasure to watch for a long time. Think of all of the fanbases around the league that would kill to go from Manning to Luck.

    Comment


    • Re: Here's my plea

      I agree with going with Luck, but people gotta stop acting like Peyton's a walking toothpick. He's been hit hard multiple times with multiple scary wrenches on his neck. Obviously hopped up every time.

      Multiple NFL players had the surgery he had and doctors said his neck could be stronger now than it had been in years. His neck is not a problem, not anymore than any other NFL player. The potential problem is the nerve regeneration in his throwing arm. When he was working out he talked about how it'd be good as new one throw and the next throw he couldn't even feel the ball in his hand. I have no clue how much that's changed. But if there is a worry it's how his arm holds up in week 14 after he's thrown the ball 600+ (including practice) times.

      Comment


      • Re: Here's my plea

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        I agree with going with Luck, but people gotta stop acting like Peyton's a walking toothpick. He's been hit hard multiple times with multiple scary wrenches on his neck. Obviously hopped up every time.

        Multiple NFL players had the surgery he had and doctors said his neck could be stronger now than it had been in years. His neck is not a problem, not anymore than any other NFL player. The potential problem is the nerve regeneration in his throwing arm. When he was working out he talked about how it'd be good as new one throw and the next throw he couldn't even feel the ball in his hand. I have no clue how much that's changed. But if there is a worry it's how his arm holds up in week 14 after he's thrown the ball 600+ (including practice) times.
        Well said. He's not airing it out like it's 2004, but his body is clearly more than capable of playing like a top 3 quarterback with that brain of his.

        14 TDs, 4 picks, 105 rating, 1808 yards in 6 games. Guy is off to one of the best starts of his legendary career. I love watching him play. The league is just better when he's out there. I think even non-Peyton fans have to admit that.

        I completely understand why we went with Luck. But there's no denying that *at worst*, we'd be 3-2 with Manning right now and would be 4-2 after waxing the Browns this weekend. We could maybe even be 4-1 with him.

        Could we have made a deep playoff run with Manning this year? I think we could have. We're obviously nowhere near as talented as we were in 06, but that 09 Super Bowl team wasn't as talented as that team either. The greatness of Manning is what took us to the SB that year. Manning makes guys look all-world. Plus the AFC isn't as strong as it used to be.

        Like I said, I completely get why we went with Luck. But I get frustrated when people act like this team would have been complete garbage even with Manning (we're already 2-3 with a rookie, so that argument really doesn't make much sense), or that Manning's contract would have killed the team.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-20-2012, 09:06 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Here's my plea

          Is there much point in rehashing this out? TPTB did what they thought was best for the Colts program moving forward.

          Peyton has looked good this year but I still think Luck is showing a lot of promise for a rookie and has a much longer career ahead of him than Manning.

          Sure, with Manning we would have been able to trade the pick for more pieces this year. With Luck, we'll be getting extra pieces in the next off-season with the excess cap space. And I don't buy that the staff won't be players in FA. This is a whole new staff that has already shown they are willing to make moves in FA.

          It's way too early to declare the Luck move a bad one. Being slightly worse this year due to the move could still easily lead to being better in the years to come.

          Regardless, there's no going back and crying over spilled milk is pointless.
          Last edited by Swingman; 10-20-2012, 12:11 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Here's my plea

            Originally posted by Swingman View Post
            Is there much point in rehashing this out? TPTB did what they thought was best for the Colts program moving forward.

            Peyton has looked good this year but I still think Luck is showing a lot of promise for rookie and has a much longer career ahead of him than Manning.

            Sure, with Manning, we would have been able to trade the pick for more pieces this year. With Luck, we'll be getting extra pieces in the next off-season with the excess cap space.

            It's way too early to declare the Luck move a bad one. Being slightly worse this year due to the move could still easily lead to being better in the years to come.

            Regardless, there's no going back and crying over spilled milk is pointless.

            Hey, I completely understand why we did it and I like Luck a whole whole lot. I think it's going to work out fine. I just take issue when people say that the team would have sucked anyway if Manning was on it.

            Comment


            • Re: Here's my plea

              Slightly worse??? The difference between making the playoffs and competing for the number one pick again is not a "slight" difference". You aren't even taking into considerations how many years the Colts will "Suck for Luck". I'm betting five minimum and if good decisions are not made, it could be a decade. Miami had almost two decades to put a team around Dan Marino and while they made the playoffs once in a while, he never got back to the Superbowl after that one and only time......

              Comment


              • Re: Here's my plea

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                Hey, I completely understand why we did it and I like Luck a whole whole lot. I think it's going to work out fine. I just take issue when people say that the team would have sucked anyway if Manning was on it.
                We'd be better but do you think the team would good enough to be a championship contender?

                The team has stunk some this year but also looked good at times. Just inconsistent, which is understanding given the youth and all the new pieces.

                We'd be a borderline playoff team with Manning and probably just missing the playoffs with Luck. I don't think the difference would be big enough to cry over spilled milk, which is what at least 1 poster has been doing ever since the draft.

                Comment


                • Re: Here's my plea

                  Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                  We'd be better but do you think the team would good enough to be a championship contender?

                  The team has stunk some this year but also looked good at times. Just inconsistent, which is understanding given the youth and all the new pieces.

                  We'd be a borderline playoff team with Manning and probably just missing the playoffs with Luck. I don't think the difference would be big enough to cry over spilled milk, which is what at least 1 poster has been doing ever since the draft.
                  The big difference is that the Colts would be a contendor with Manning at QB. They may NEVER be a contender with Luck at the QB. 36 years. Remember that number, I suffered through it year after year after year with phenoms like Jeff George and Jim Harbaugh supposedly taking us to the promised land. It never happened.....

                  Comment


                  • Re: Here's my plea

                    This Colts team is not a contender with Peyton. That's lunacy. Almost as much as saying the Colts will suck for a decade with Luck. Your entire point is based on nothing but fantasy and absolute worst case scenarios.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Here's my plea

                      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                      I agree with going with Luck, but people gotta stop acting like Peyton's a walking toothpick. He's been hit hard multiple times with multiple scary wrenches on his neck. Obviously hopped up every time.

                      Multiple NFL players had the surgery he had and doctors said his neck could be stronger now than it had been in years. His neck is not a problem, not anymore than any other NFL player. The potential problem is the nerve regeneration in his throwing arm. When he was working out he talked about how it'd be good as new one throw and the next throw he couldn't even feel the ball in his hand. I have no clue how much that's changed. But if there is a worry it's how his arm holds up in week 14 after he's thrown the ball 600+ (including practice) times.
                      I don't think that is an accurate statement in any way, shape, or form.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Here's my plea

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I don't think that is an accurate statement in any way, shape, or form.
                        http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ers-optimism/1

                        -- Of the 53 NFL players treated surgically for CDH, 72% returned to play and continued to play in an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8-year period after surgery. (Only 46% of those who treated the injury nonsurgically returned to play, and averaged 14.7 games over a 1.5-year period before retiring.)

                        -- Dr. Hsu said those players who returned after surgery did have lower performance scores and started fewer games than before their injuries, but said the differences weren't "statistically significant."

                        -- Defensive backs had the bleakest outcome. Six of 12 who were treated surgically returned to play and averaged 17 games of a 1.85-year period. Of the 19 who opted for nonsurgical treatment only seven made it back to the NFL, and they were limited to six games.

                        -- The 31 DBs in the study by far represented the greatest number at any position. The others with CDH: 12 defensive linemen, 11 offensive linemen, 17 linebackers, 8 running backs, 4 tight ends, 7 wide receivers, 8 quarterbacks and one kicker.
                        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...lth/53424974/1

                        Wellington K. Hsu, a spine surgeon and assistant professor at Northwestern University, says the fused area should not be vulnerable. "In fact, his neck is probably stronger now than it was before the surgery because he has a solid, bony fusion," Hsu said.

                        Rick Sasso, an Indianapolis spine surgeon who, like Hsu, was not involved in Manning's treatment, agrees. "As long as the fusion was solid, that segment is very protected," he said.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Here's my plea

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          I don't think that is an accurate statement in any way, shape, or form.
                          Yes it is. I've posted a study of Dr. Hsu who tracked length of players career, and even measured the difference in statistical output, IIRC, many times when we were discussing the probability of Peyton playing again.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Here's my plea

                            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                            This Colts team is not a contender with Peyton. That's lunacy. Almost as much as saying the Colts will suck for a decade with Luck. Your entire point is based on nothing but fantasy and absolute worst case scenarios.
                            We're 2-3 with a rookie quarterback. At worst, we would be 3-2 with Peyton and would easily dispose of the Browns this weekend if we had him, giving us a 4-2 record. We could maybe even be 4-1 right now with the way Peyton is playing and thus be playing for a 5-1 start this weekend.

                            How is that not a contender? Would we be the favorites in the AFC with Peyton? No. But could we go on a run and win a playoff game or two with him? Absolutely, *especially* when you consider that him still being here means we would have likely traded the number 1 pick for other assets.

                            It's not like that 09 team that went to the Super Bowl was as talented as the teams we had in the middle of the 2000's. It was all Peyton.

                            I completely understand why went the route we did with Luck and I support the direction the franchise is taking. But any team with Peyton playing like he is right now is a contender. The favorite? Probably not, but definitely a contender.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Here's my plea

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              This Colts team is not a contender with Peyton. That's lunacy. Almost as much as saying the Colts will suck for a decade with Luck. Your entire point is based on nothing but fantasy and absolute worst case scenarios.
                              You are a very good poster and I agree with you most of the time but you are very wrong with this...... Think about adding about five or six more high draft picks on this team and adding Peyton and then free agent money coming next year. If they had done that, we might have made another run to the Super Bowl. I am not sure that the Colts will suck for a decade with Luck. I am pretty sure about five years and I am real sure about three years. That is to get to the winning side of ledger. Becoming a contender might be many more years away....

                              Comment


                              • Re: Here's my plea

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post

                                2. Wrong, my posts on the Pacers are much different. I think they are headed in the right direction. I don't think they are the second or third best team in the east but still very good. I have them going 48-32 for the season. That is a very good record I am predicting for them.

                                48 + 32 < 82

                                I wish Peyton the best, but it's the Andrew Luck era now. Time to move on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X