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

Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

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

  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    The Broncos put up 35 points. The Ravens should never score 38.
    It doesn't really matter. I think it's obvious to anyone that watched that the Broncos screwed up in many ways that don't involve Peyton at all. But at the end of the day, he had chances to close the game out and he didn't. I'm not saying that makes the loss "all his fault" or anything like that. But the opportunities were there for the taking, and he didn't capitalize. In the past I would have marked that up to poor team design by Polian (too small, built for the regular season) or dumb mistakes by Caldwell, or whatever . . . and certainly, you can still play that game and make a valid argument. But I, personally, am over it. Peyton had a winnable game in front of him and he didn't take it. It sucks. But it is what it is. He's gone one-and-done often enough that there's not really any looking around it any longer.
    Last edited by SoupIsGood; 01-13-2013, 01:35 AM.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      As far as I'm concerned, this past week ends any debate about the Luck decision.

      There is no NFL executive who would currently take RGIII over Luck right now with the question marks that surround RGIII. None.

      Peyton Manning, with a loaded team and the number one seed, couldn't make a play at the end and threw an untimely pick in the first playoff game of the season. An ending all too familiar for Colts fans. Keeping Manning would have only been worth it if we made it back to the Super Bowl and it's hard to say that we would have after watching him tonight.

      We made the right decision dumping Manning and drafting Luck.
      Sadly, yeah. Manning will always be a Colt in my heart and one of my foremost personal role models. (As silly as it may be to admit to a sports star being a role model.) And I'll be rooting for him to win a superbowl or two before his career is done. But Luck . . . I wouldn't swap the rest of his career for two more MVP years of Manning.

      Props to Irsay for having the vision to see this and the guts to execute. I was one of the many who were emotionally overinvested and wanted to give up #18 over my cold dead hands . . .
      Last edited by SoupIsGood; 01-13-2013, 01:46 AM.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

        This game came down to making the big plays. The Ravens made the big plays when they need to...the touchdown to tie the game and the interception to set up the game winning field goal. The Broncos didn't make the big plays on offense or defense. That was the difference in the game today.

        Comment


        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

          Got to be able to run the ball better and stop the run better when it is 13 degrees. Not really sure how Manning helps or hurts with either of those factors.

          A cold, bad weather playoff game? Flacco is now 7-4 lifetime in the playoffs, 7-2 when not playing the Steelers (mostly of his playoff wins are road wins), because he's had the fortune of QB'ing a complete team built to run and stop the run when the weather isn't ideal.

          You can make a big play, and you need to make big plays. But you also need to be able to make stops and grind it out.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            14 of the 35 Broncos points were off of special teams returns. Manning's offense only put up 21 points in over 5 quarters of play. Manning's pick six is also responsible for 7 of the 38 Ravens points. His pick at the end also set them up in nice position for the field goal. Manning's turnovers contributed to Baltimore getting points.

            Manning didn't play that great. He wasn't awful, but he didn't make enough plays at the end and turned the ball over in his own territory at the end of the game.
            I don't disagree with the rest of what you say but I disagree with the bolded part. Manning is the last person to blame for that pick 6. The referees are to blame.

            Comment


            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

              So, anyone want to guess how many Tebowites will come out of the woodwork on Denver sports talk radio this week?
              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

              Comment


              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                Denver's defense gave up THREE deep ball touchdowns in this game, thats what lost the game in my opinion
                Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                Comment


                • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                  Felt sorry for Peyton yesterday. Not making excuses for him though. His playoff record is what it is and the last pick he threw was a really poor decision (throwing the ball across his body). The first pick was a blatant PI.

                  Still can't get over 2 things. Why they didn't go for the pass on the 3rd down but instead chose to run. Yes they saved some seconds but are you gonna tell me it was that much of a risk to throw it? It wasn't 3rd and long. The other one of course, is Ravens' TD that tied the game and the stupidity of the the Broncos safety and CB. Besides the fact that you just can't give up such a big play with few seconds remaining on the clock, what was he thinking and didn't close down the receiver earlier? You know they are going deep, go and stay with him right away. Unbelievable. Was rooting for Broncos last night, due to Peyton, and was extremely pissed off.

                  What's even more worse, is the big possibility now that the Pats are gonna have another SB appearance. Arghh!
                  Last edited by Johanvil; 01-13-2013, 09:22 AM.
                  Never forget

                  Comment


                  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    Got to be able to run the ball better and stop the run better when it is 13 degrees. Not really sure how Manning helps or hurts with either of those factors.

                    A cold, bad weather playoff game? Flacco is now 7-4 lifetime in the playoffs, 7-2 when not playing the Steelers (mostly of his playoff wins are road wins), because he's had the fortune of QB'ing a complete team built to run and stop the run when the weather isn't ideal.

                    You can make a big play, and you need to make big plays. But you also need to be able to make stops and grind it out.
                    Big plays were the reason Baltimore won the game. Two Flacco bombs to Torry Smith that resulted in touchdowns. The 70 yard touchdown reception to Jones at the end of the fourth. That 32 yard Ray Rice run that set up a touchdown in the fourth quarter. The pick six on Manning in the beginning. Not being able to grind it out and run the ball cost Denver in the end, but Baltimore basically won this game off of big plays. The cold weather might have affected Manning's ability to throw it far in the cold, but it didn't phase Flacco.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                      Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                      What's even more worse, is the big possibility now that the Pats are gonna have another SB appearance. Arghh!
                      I think this gritty Baltimore team has just as good a chance of beating the Pats as the Broncos did, assuming the Pats win today. The Ravens always play the Pats close. They beat them this year and were a Lee Evans drop away from beating them in the AFC Championship game last year. Flacco completely outplayed Brady in that AFC Championship game. The cold weather clearly doesn't affect his ability to launch it, as he showed yesterday.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                        If Denver's D would have played that prevent and three man rush better at the end of the fourth, it wouldn't have came down to that interception in OT. Oh well, it is what it is. Lets all just hope Houston can beat N.E., wishful thinking
                        Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                        Comment


                        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          Here's a sobering stat: Since winning the Super Bowl against the Bears six years ago, Peyton has won just two playoff games in five seasons (sat out 2011). Both of those two wins were in 2009 en route to the Super Bowl (Ravens, Jets).
                          Can you really blame the Jets lose on him, though? (His last playoff game where he did enough to win and caldwell/defense blew it)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            I think this gritty Baltimore team has just as good a chance of beating the Pats as the Broncos did, assuming the Pats win today. The Ravens always play the Pats close. They beat them this year and were a Lee Evans drop away from beating them in the AFC Championship game last year. Flacco completely outplayed Brady in that AFC Championship game. The cold weather clearly doesn't affect his ability to launch it, as he showed yesterday.
                            Not doubting that Baltimore can win at Foxborough (although i think their chances will be thin) but their earlier win against N.E. doesn't mean anything. Playoffs are a completely different beast.
                            Never forget

                            Comment


                            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              14 of the 35 Broncos points were off of special teams returns. Manning's offense only put up 21 points in over 5 quarters of play. Manning's pick six is also responsible for 7 of the 38 Ravens points. His pick at the end also set them up in nice position for the field goal. Manning's turnovers contributed to Baltimore getting points.

                              Manning didn't play that great. He wasn't awful, but he didn't make enough plays at the end and turned the ball over in his own territory at the end of the game.
                              My point is, it shouldn't have had to be strictly on Peyton. The defense should never have given up anywhere near 38 points. Hell, the Colts only gave up 24 in Baltimore.

                              I will agree that the late INT was a killer, but again, it should never have been that close.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                                Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
                                Can you really blame the Jets lose on him, though? (His last playoff game where he did enough to win and caldwell/defense blew it)
                                Oh no, I'm not blaming everything on him. But when he held up the Lombardi trophy in Miami, who would have ever thought that he would win just two playoff games over the next six years?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X