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

  • #31
    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
    Peyton Manning doesn't play defense, thank God.

    Football you're one of 22 starters, and there's special teams as well. In basketball you're one of 5 starters, and you play both sides of the ball. Any NBA player has 10 times the impact on a game than any player possibly could in football, even the QB.

    That's an asinine comparison. Completely unrelated.
    ya Jordan was the best offensive player and one of the best defensive players in the NBA. It is much easier to compete with a star in the NBA than the NFL. Much easier to build a team in the NBA than the NFL.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
      The counter argument would be that Peyton's dad was supposedly pretty damn good, and how many playoffs did he make?
      He wasn't anywhere near Peyton's level.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        Powers in the 3rd, Bethea in the 6th, trading a 6th (I think) for Tryon, Kavell Conner in the 6th will be at least as good as Cato June, Collie in the 4th, until he gets another concussion and retires and we apply the Gonzo logic, Garcon, frustrating as he is, in the 6th. These aren't picks in the mid-late rounds that ''incompetent" front offices make. We aren't the Pats and don't have a single player from a draft class on the roster 3 years later. Hughes is still far too early to tell, Brown seems to be a legitimate bust and I didn't like the pick on draft night, Ugoh's clearly a bust, Gonzalez is a very good WR just gets hurt. He never got hurt in school, no chronic injury history. Them's the breaks, football's a somewhat physical game. Marlin Jackson was about the furthest thing from a bust.

        In no way at all am I saying Polian & Co have been infallible in the last 3 or so years, far from it. Just that this seeming black/white two camp argument of either the Colts front office is run by kindergarteners and if you disagree you're a Polian apologist is beyond ridiculous. Calling the Colts front office anything close to incompetent is, forgive the harshness, but frankly downright stupid. Fire Bill Polian tomorrow, watch how quick about 24 or so teams fire their personnel and hire him.

        Also, that "just one" championship, we won that almost in spite of Peyton. He did not have a good playoff run.
        I said I agreed with you in general. I don't think our front office is incompetent, or even close to it. I do think they have made some mistakes in recent years with high draft picks that is catching up with us now though.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
          Peyton Manning doesn't play defense, thank God.

          Football you're one of 22 starters, and there's special teams as well. In basketball you're one of 5 starters, and you play both sides of the ball. Any NBA player has 10 times the impact on a game than any player possibly could in football, even the QB.

          That's an asinine comparison. Completely unrelated.
          You must have been swimming in alcohol in utero. Read the post of Kegboy and get those narrow eyes checked.

          Everyone knows basketball fans complaints with not building a more solid team around Manning and how this has lead to fewer championships and I personally don't see a problem with pointing out the obvious. One championship with the best quarterback in the league is weak especially considering the GM the Colts have.

          JOrdan still needed players around him and thats the point your ignoring.
          Last edited by Gamble1; 09-05-2011, 09:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            You must have been swimming in alcohol in utero
            Really? Really?

            Internet tough guys got to love'em. I guarantee you wouldn't say it to my face, so don't pretend you would online. What a jackass. I'm not even going to bother reading past that point.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
              Peyton Manning doesn't play defense, thank God.

              Football you're one of 22 starters, and there's special teams as well. In basketball you're one of 5 starters, and you play both sides of the ball. Any NBA player has 10 times the impact on a game than any player possibly could in football, even the QB.

              That's an asinine comparison. Completely unrelated.
              It isn't asinine at all, but okay, would Cowboys fans complain if they only won one Super Bowl with Aikman/Smith/Irving? Hell, the Colts didn't win any with Manning/Edge/Harrison, which was arguably just as good. The difference, of course, is that the Cowboys had an excellent defense.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                I still can't believe that people ***** about winning "only one championship" on a freakin' Pacers board.


                I never expected nearly as much from the Pacers as I did with the Colts (except maybe in 1998 and 2004 and even then I still figured it wasn't going to happen)

                Because as great as the Pacers were I never saw them as a potential dynasty and the best player of that particular generation unfortunately played for the Bulls.

                Jordan winning 1 ring would've been disappointing and I guarantee he wouldn't nearly be as celebrated as he is now even though he hasn't played in nearly a decade.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Really? Really?

                  Internet tough guys got to love'em. I guarantee you wouldn't say it to my face, so don't pretend you would online. What a jackass. I'm not even going to bother reading past that point.
                  You can meet me at any of the forum parties. I have no problem telling you that you like to ignore the context of previous post and I can do it in a snarky way if it helps.
                  Last edited by Gamble1; 09-06-2011, 09:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    We aren't the Pats and don't have a single player from a draft class on the roster 3 years later.
                    The Patriots have made 40 draft picks in the last 4 years, and in that time they have replaced 46 of 53 players from a roster that went 18-1 (retained: Brady, Light, Mankins, Koppen, Gostkowski, Welker, Wilfork).

                    They have at least 2 players remaining from each of the last 4 draft classes.

                    I am assuming you are referring to the 2007 draft, rated by some as the weakest draft of the decade, a draft in which the Pats essentially traded out of, trading 2nd, 4th, and 6th round picks for Welker and Moss, traded other picks for future picks, and used the #1 pick for Meriweather. Granted, they didn't get a lot directly out of that draft, but they used those assets to get multi-year pro bowl production from Moss, Welker, and Meriweather as well as some trading chips that let them replace 10 of 11 starters on defense and 6 of 11 starters on offense.

                    Belichick also makes roster decisions without regard to pedigree. If an undrafted rookie free agent (say, Jeff Tarpinian) is more productive in camp than a 5 year vet and former 1st round draft pick coming off two straight pro bowl appearances (Meriweather), then the rookie free agent is kept. I don't think you would say the same thing for most team architects, who let sunken costs, their own rampant egos, and a desire to avoid criticism with respect to their draft selections cloud the cut-down decision process.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-06-2011, 08:41 AM.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      You can meet me at any of the forum parties. I have no problem telling you that you like to ignore the context of previous post and I can do it in a snarky way if it helps.
                      Snarky is one thing. Blatantly insulting someone is quite another.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                        Snarky is one thing. Blatantly insulting someone is quite another.
                        Calling my post asinine is an insult no? Don't be surprise if someone fires back at your insults especially when you instigate it.

                        The fact that the colts have won one championship in Indy and the Pacers haven't shouldn't lower my expectations for the Colts. If the roles were reversed and the Pacers had the best player in the NBA for 13 years on the team I wouldn't be happy with just one championship. This is especially true when certain fundamental aspects of the game are being overlooked for long periods of time which is the case for the Colts.

                        If you or Kegboy are fine with one championship from the best QB in this generation then fine i'll respect that but don't fire back on me for having a different opinion and expect me to OK with it.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 09-06-2011, 01:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                          Saying someone made one asinine comparison is the same as claiming someone was retarded at birth? Yep, got me there.

                          Again, like I said the Pacers having the best player in the NBA is entirely different than having the best player in the NFL. Just as being the best in Tennis is different than having the best player in the NBA. The less players involved the more influence that single player can have. Especially when Peyton is only on the field for 40% of the plays.

                          If that's your stance, then apparently I didn't miss the point of your post at all to begin with.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

                            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                            Saying someone made one asinine comparison is the same as claiming someone was retarded at birth? Yep, got me there.

                            Again, like I said the Pacers having the best player in the NBA is entirely different than having the best player in the NFL. Just as being the best in Tennis is different than having the best player in the NBA. The less players involved the more influence that single player can have. Especially when Peyton is only on the field for 40% of the plays.

                            If that's your stance, then apparently I didn't miss the point of your post at all to begin with.
                            OF course there are differences between the NBA and the NFL. Stating the obvious doesn't resolve that some on here think Manning with one ring is somehow reaching his potential as the best player in his generation. The reason why Basketball fan complained is because Manning should have more rings if it wasn't for an incomplete team/philosophy surrounding him.

                            According to Kegboy no one should complain since the Pacers have had limited success compared to the Colts. I disagree plain and simple.

                            Do I think the Colts should have 6 rings as in the case of the Bulls? Of course not but they should have more than one IMO and a lot of people outside of Indy will tell you the same.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Tommie Harris cut by Colts

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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.
                                The argument that injuries are the reason why the Colts have only one superbowl is just too simple. Thats like saying other superbowl contenders don't have to deal with injuries year in and year out.

                                Injuries are apart of the game that everyone has to deal with and the reason why certain teams deal with them better than others is because there offensive/defensive schemes don't rely on one or two great players to stay healthy. The only exception would be the QB IMO.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X