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

Tommie Harris cut by Colts

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

  • #46
    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

    Just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's wrong.

    And I'm not saying it's the only explanation either. It's a number of things. Polian's misses are pretty far down on the list, IMHO though.

    For every early draft bust, you also have a late draft steal like Bethea.


    The fact of the matter is that the Colts have put together a historical team. From holding a record for the most consecutive 12 win seasons, to the most consecutive playoff appearances.

    You don't reach the heights the Colts have reached with a dumbass sitting in the drivers seat.


    It's perfectly logical to say that the Colts would have won more than one SB if Sanders had the ability to stay healthy. We would probably never have these conversations if that was the case, and you can't blame Polian for injuries.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

      Green Bay was as injured last year as any Colts team has ever been, including the Colts last year.

      NFL football players get injured a lot. It's why you build the best 53-man roster you can, have the best practive squad you can, and have about a dozen other guys on speed dial for when you need them. Sometimes that list even runs dry and you find Troy Brown playing cornerback in the Super Bowl.

      The Colts don't have more injuries than other teams, on average. They just talk about them a whole lot more.
      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


      • #48
        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

        And that refutes the argument how exactly?

        I never said the Colts were the only team in the league that dealt with injuries. But Green Bay having one year with injuries is a little different than having mutliple years with injuries.

        EDIT: Do we talk about it more, or is this just a Colts forum so you read about it more?

        Start a thread talking about GB's issues then, if you think they're worthy enough for discussion.

        True or false, the Colts have had season after season with injuries to major players? True.

        That's all I care about.
        Last edited by Since86; 09-06-2011, 04:54 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's wrong.

          And I'm not saying it's the only explanation either. It's a number of things. Polian's misses are pretty far down on the list, IMHO though.

          For every early draft bust, you also have a late draft steal like Bethea.


          The fact of the matter is that the Colts have put together a historical team. From holding a record for the most consecutive 12 win seasons, to the most consecutive playoff appearances.

          You don't reach the heights the Colts have reached with a dumbass sitting in the drivers seat.


          It's perfectly logical to say that the Colts would have won more than one SB if Sanders had the ability to stay healthy. We would probably never have these conversations if that was the case, and you can't blame Polian for injuries.
          No one thinks that of Polain. Now arrogant and headstrong to a fault thats another story.

          IMo high draft round bust hurt a lot more than missing in the later rounds and the later round steals can't compensate for such bust.

          Injuries are apart of the game and thats why no one uses them as excuses why they didn't win the superbowl. Great teams can overcome injuries like the Pats and the Steelers or Greenbay for that matter.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            No one thinks that of Polain. Now arrogant and headstrong to a fault thats another story.

            IMo high draft round bust hurt a lot more than missing in the later rounds and the later round steals can't compensate for such bust.

            Injuries are apart of the game and thats why no one uses them as excuses why they didn't win the superbowl. Great teams can overcome injuries like the Pats and the Steelers or Greenbay for that matter.
            Big difference between an excuse and a reason...injuries are a REASON the colts have only won one super bowl

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
              Big difference between an excuse and a reason...injuries are a REASON the colts have only won one super bowl
              Not really injures happen every year in football you kind of have to prepare for injuries in the NFL it is a big part of the game. Look at GB last year they had a lot of key players hurt and still won. You can only use injuries as a reason if your QB #18 goes down the rest you have to be able to replace on the fly like GB did last year.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Do we talk about it more, or is this just a Colts forum so you read about it more?
                No other owner tweets an injury list.

                No other team president calls a press conference to discuss their injury list in detail, with violins playing in the background (/sarcasm).

                Most just quietly issue a vague press release at the latest possible moment with the least information allowable.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I guess I didn't realize that Polian should have looked harder into his crystal ball and drafted someone other than Bob Sanders.

                  Bob Sanders doesn't go down every game, that he manages to get healthy for, and it's a completely different team.



                  The argument that the team didn't win as much as they should, because of Polian is pretty funny.

                  They're the winningest team in the decade. They simply couldn't stay healthy. Do we really need to create the extremely long laundry list of injuries they've had to overcome year in and year out?


                  Since it's Bill's fault Bob couldn't play, I'm now placing Dwight's injury riddled past in his lap as well.



                  I don't think it was mere coincidence that the playoff year Bob was healthy was the year they happened to win.


                  The real moral of the story? There will always be complainers.
                  That's a huge stretch. Sanders' two best seasons, 2005 and 2007, were years where we went one and done at home. He was a completely healthy pro bowler for both of those years and won DPOY in 07. So saying that "the playoff year Bob was healthy was the year they happened to win" is a distortion.

                  Let's not sit here and act surprised that Sanders had a large amount of injury problems. He was 5'8 200 pounds and played like a wild one-man wrecking crew. That's never going to be a recipe of health and longevity for an NFL player. If you play that way in an already violent sport against NFL athletes then it's almost inevitable that you are going to get hurt quite a bit. If you don't play like that then you might be healthy more, but then you aren't Bob Sanders. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

                  Sanders was never going to have a healthy career for 10 years. I'm content with what we got out of him. He helped us win a Super Bowl and had a couple of super productive seasons for us. It's simply unrealistic to ask too much more of a guy who uses his small body like he did.

                  And what season would he have made a difference anyway? I already pointed out 2005 and 2007 where we lost despite having him completely healthy. In 09 we made the Super Bowl without him as Bullitt turned out to be a more than adequate replacement for 08 and 09. A guy who plays like Sanders is only going to be healthy/productive for an extremely small window. I don't see any year where you can say "hey, if only we had Sanders"

                  This team's problems over the years go much deeper than Sanders having injury problems.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-07-2011, 09:03 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                    Not really injures happen every year in football you kind of have to prepare for injuries in the NFL it is a big part of the game. Look at GB last year they had a lot of key players hurt and still won. You can only use injuries as a reason if your QB #18 goes down the rest you have to be able to replace on the fly like GB did last year.
                    That is the exception that proves the rule. They are an absolutely rarely stacked team on the offense and the defensive backfield is probably the best in the NFL depth wise. That team can miss some guys purely because they have 5 to 6 guys who would start on most teams at some positions.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      This team's problems over the years go much deeper than Sanders having injury problems.
                      Once again, did I say that it was the ONLY problem?

                      I answered that question before you posted this You're really going to try and argue that the teams best defensive player doesn't make all that big of an impact on their post season play?

                      The best player against the run, when your team struggles stopping the run, wouldn't change the outcome of games? Wow, okay......
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                        Not really injures happen every year in football you kind of have to prepare for injuries in the NFL it is a big part of the game. Look at GB last year they had a lot of key players hurt and still won. You can only use injuries as a reason if your QB #18 goes down the rest you have to be able to replace on the fly like GB did last year.
                        The only injury that matters if Peyton goes down?

                        So they could lose the other 21 starters and if Peyton stays healthy, then they'd be alright?

                        We all know the answer, so let's not talk in absolutes please.


                        Also, please inform me of a GB player that is as important as Bob Sanders who has injury problems.

                        And once you find that player, please find another high impact player that is also as injury prone as Dwight Freeney.

                        I'll be waiting.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          No other owner tweets an injury list.

                          No other team president calls a press conference to discuss their injury list in detail, with violins playing in the background (/sarcasm).

                          Most just quietly issue a vague press release at the latest possible moment with the least information allowable.
                          Then go to a different NFL message board. Problem solved.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            No one thinks that of Polain. Now arrogant and headstrong to a fault thats another story.
                            Arrogance and headstrong = dumbass.

                            If your so arrogant/headstrong you think you can do anything, and it routinely gets you in trouble, then you're a dumbass.

                            Whether you screw up because of that, or because of your low level of intelligence, really doesn't matter. You're still screwing up.

                            I think we can agree Big Ben didn't try to rape two girls (opinion) because he's that dumb. He's arrogant and thought he could do what he wanted. That's being a dumbass.

                            You don't get articles written like this
                            http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/24/foo...-managers.html

                            When you're routinely making fatal mistakes.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              And once you find that player, please find another high impact player that is also as injury prone as Dwight Freeney.

                              I'll be waiting.

                              Freeney has played 9 seasons and his games played are as followed:

                              16 (started 8)
                              15 (started 13)
                              16
                              16 (started 13)
                              16
                              9
                              15 (started 14)
                              14 (only started 9)
                              16

                              http://www.pro-football-reference.co...F/FreeDw00.htm

                              Injury prone? Come on, the guy has started at least 13 games in 6 of his 9 NFL seasons and has played in at least 14 games in 8 of the 9. And since his lack of starting in 02 was due to him being a rookie, he's really only had 2 seasons (07 and 09) affected by injury. The 09 injury just happened to come at the worst time possible so it was extremely magnified. And the 2007 injury had nothing to do with being "injury prone". A Chargers player stepped on his foot as he was making a spin move. That was just a freak injury that would have f'd anyone up.

                              There is just no way that you can classify Freeney as "injury prone". By and large, he's been pretty healthy throughout his long career. He just happens to play the most violent sport at the highest level. So yeah, if you play his position for his decade then you are going to have some bruises here and there. But he's been pretty fortunate overall.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                                So let me get this straight.

                                Players don't play through injuries? Freeney played in the SB, and probably shouldn't. But by your logic, because he played, he wasn't injured.

                                We all know he was, and we all saw how relatively ineffective he was during the last SB because of it.

                                Let's not rewrite history based on a box score.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X