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

Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

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

  • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

    Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
    Maybe not Brady, but given the rationale of some he obviously must be better than his older brother given the fact hes won twice as many super bowls in a shorter amount of time...
    So Brady is better than Peyton, because Brady has beaten Peyton more. Eli isn't better than Brady, even though Eli has beaten Brady more. Consistency in logic, FTW.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

      You know people are bored with the pre-season when a Manning vs. Brady debate has carried over to the Pacers board.

      Comment


      • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

        Originally posted by mattie View Post
        I also know, in a completely unrelated event, there are a lot of confused people like yourself who think Peyton underperformed in the playoffs.
        Your opinion. My opinion says someone considered by many the greatest QB of all time should not be one-and-done 8 out of 12 times in the playoffs. And the one year with the championship, he had 3 TDs and 7 INTs in 4 playoff games. He never elevated his game in the postseason. My love for Reggie came because of that exact reason, how much he elevated his game in the playoffs.

        Comment


        • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

          Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
          Your opinion. My opinion says someone considered by many the greatest QB of all time should not be one-and-done 8 out of 12 times in the playoffs. And the one year with the championship, he had 3 TDs and 7 INTs in 4 playoff games. He never elevated his game in the postseason. My love for Reggie came because of that exact reason, how much he elevated his game in the playoffs.
          He elevated his game in the second half of the AFCCG against the Patriots in what is considered the greatest playoff comeback ever. He won that game with his arm.

          Comment


          • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

            Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
            How is it a "blatant contradiction?" Am I expressing my undying love for Purdue athletics because I have a box that displays their logo? No, I'm expressing my love for their education. Are they underachievers there? Am I supposed to put up Ball State because they are so great at sports? Are you related to Peyton and butthurt about my opinion? You can try to make it personal all you want, but it's not going to change my mind that Peyton was an underachiever in the playoffs.
            The point of the boxes is for athletics, not academics. I would think that should be fairly obvious considering the Indians, Pacers, nor Colts have anything to do with academics. I'm not butthurt. You have your right to your opinion, and I have the right to point out inconsistency in your position. If you don't like underachievers, then I suggest rooting for new teams.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              He elevated his game in the second half of the AFCCG against the Patriots in what is considered the greatest playoff comeback ever. He won that game with his arm.
              He most definitely had good playoff games. The Denver spanking comes to mind, right after they throttled us to end the season. But he never did it consistently. Do you really think Peyton is known for elevating his game in the playoffs? I believe most of America would agree with me.

              Comment


              • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                The point of the boxes is for athletics, not academics. I would think that should be fairly obvious considering the Indians, Pacers, nor Colts have anything to do with academics. I'm not butthurt. You have your right to your opinion, and I have the right to point out inconsistency in your position. If you don't like underachievers, then I suggest rooting for new teams.
                The thing is, your assuming I'm just like you again. I really don't care about Purdue athletics at all, but I'm a Purdue fan. If they lose every year, it bothers me zero. Just because you put your favorite sports teams in that area, doesn't mean I did. I don't recall the system asking me to confirm I was really talking about Purdue athletics and not just the school in general.

                Comment


                • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                  This is what it says for the NCAA box "My Favorite NCAA Team." My fault for assuming you knew what the boxes were for. I apologize.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                    I really hate to do this but, if we're going to criticize Peyton's playoff failures we can't act like Reggie and the Pacers always came through. Reggie had several poor shooting game 7's, and couldn't close the deal on championships even when Michael Jordan wasn't there.

                    For the record, one interesting thought experiment is the guess how many Super Bowls , and maybe titles, the Colts might have had had they played in the NFC and didn't have to face the Patriots (often in the snow), Steelers or Chargers until a Super Bowl on a neutral field.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      So Brady is better than Peyton, because Brady has beaten Peyton more. Eli isn't better than Brady, even though Eli has beaten Brady more. Consistency in logic, FTW.
                      you really do need to pay closer attention
                      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                      Comment


                      • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        If you don't like underachievers, then I suggest rooting for new teams.
                        I previously implied I can't put Manning over Reggie because Manning underachieved, while Reggie overachieved. Just because the Indians and Purdue aren't good doesn't mean they underachieved. They never had the talent to be the greatest, while Manning did.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                          Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                          I really hate to do this but, if we're going to criticize Peyton's playoff failures we can't act like Reggie and the Pacers always came through. Reggie had several poor shooting game 7's, and couldn't close the deal on championships even when Michael Jordan wasn't there.
                          Not fair, one was David, one was Goliath. Reggie was never a 4 time MVP. He didn't need to win championships. When you win 4 MVPs, you do or some might see you as an underachiever.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            This is what it says for the NCAA box "My Favorite NCAA Team." My fault for assuming you knew what the boxes were for. I apologize.
                            I'm soooo sorry I didn't use the system properly. How could I ever do that? I can't believe you are criticizing my use of the "sports teams" area. Do you need me to change it?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                              Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                              I really hate to do this but, if we're going to criticize Peyton's playoff failures we can't act like Reggie and the Pacers always came through. Reggie had several poor shooting game 7's, and couldn't close the deal on championships even when Michael Jordan wasn't there.

                              For the record, one interesting thought experiment is the guess how many Super Bowls , and maybe titles, the Colts might have had had they played in the NFC and didn't have to face the Patriots (often in the snow), Steelers or Chargers until a Super Bowl on a neutral field.
                              and...and...what if...my aunt had balls....lol...
                              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                              Comment


                              • Re: Who has more love in Indy: Reggie or Peyton?

                                Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                                I really hate to do this but, if we're going to criticize Peyton's playoff failures we can't act like Reggie and the Pacers always came through. Reggie had several poor shooting game 7's, and couldn't close the deal on championships even when Michael Jordan wasn't there.

                                Exactly. 1995 against Orlando and especially 1999 against New York come to mind. The Pacers should not have allowed that Knicks team to spank them so badly and win two games at MSA. Reggie had a poor 8 points in that Game 6 at NY when they eliminated us. Thankfully he made up for it a year later when he scored 34 to propel us to the Finals, but let's not act like that he maxed out every single postseason appearance. The Pacers had missed opportunities and could have gotten to more NBA Finals if they had cashed in.

                                I'll be the first to admit that Peyton's postseason play often left a lot to be desired. But he did win a Super Bowl, and in the process defeated Brady and the Patriots in one of the most memorable NFL playoff games in history. Can't ever take that away from him. The fact that he is a Super Bowl champion, 4 time MVP, and is considered one of the greatest players in league history easily elevates him above a guy like Reggie Miller. Like I said, Peyton's one ring might hurt him in a debate against Joe Montana or Tom Brady, but it's not going to hurt him in a "most loved Indy athlete" debate when he's being compared to a guy in Reggie who never won a title.

                                Anyone living in Indy or Indiana during that Super Bowl run in early 2007 knows that was by far the most special moment in the history of Indy sports. Nothing comes close. For Indy to finally win a modern big league championship.....you just can't put it into words. We all wished that we would have won a bit more, but Peyton's Colts giving us that experience once means that he is easily the most beloved athlete in Indy history.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X