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

Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

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

  • #16
    Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

    This Colts season is really going to be a huge question mark.

    Peyton is getting up there and his health is becoming a concern.

    It remains a big question if he'll be able to get through all 16 games.
    In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
      There's a lot of truth to this article: Will have a great regular season then flameout in the playoffs

      Sounds about right
      Douchebag. Indy has played in two of the last five Superbowls. Care to revise your comment now that REALITY has intervened?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

        Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
        Douchebag. Indy has played in two of the last five Superbowls. Care to revise your comment now that REALITY has intervened?
        And the Steelers have been in 3 of the last 6 SB's and won 2 of them.

        2>1

        See how that works now?

        What part isn't true the Colts have great regular seasons and are the winningest team of the decade but have 1 SB to show for it. Usually you would think having all those wins would lead to more SB wins.

        Just me I guess.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

          Yes, having a great QB means you should win a ton of Super Bowls.

          Tell that to Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, or Fran Tarkenton.

          Let's get real here.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

            When you are the winningest team of the decade in win total some of those should've been SB's

            I mean after all Joe Montana has 4 of those.

            I think the Colts underachieved in the Manning era

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              You mean the 14 years before Manning was drafted? The Colts being the doormat of the NFL?

              Yeah some of us actually remember those days too and just because we're good now doesn't mean we don't appreciate it some of us realize how fleeting it is and when Manning retires we can at least look back at his era as the good old days.

              Some of us just think they could've actually done more they just choose not to.
              the colts should have gone to the SB in 1995 I believe...the game we got robbed by the Steelers/Zebras. When the NFL Network aired the show listing the most controversial calls of all time, it was amazing how many of them were in the steelers favor...and this one wasn't even on the list. We win that game in the instant replay era.

              but i can't argue that we were more often than not a doormat over those years

              I expect the colts to beat the steelers when we play them, but I can pretty well accept that there is nothing we can do immediately rise to that teams stature in the NFL historically. i think it's that seems always seem to go their way...but they've been contenders over multiple decades not just one like us. It's would be great if we had 2 SBs to their 1 during the Manning/Big Ben eras..but nobody is going to think Big Ben is better than Manning historically..and nobody is going to think the Colts are better than the Steelers in a historical big-picture perspective

              to me the pats "dynasty" is still completely tainted. they haven't been able to do anything in the playoffs since their film crew got canned. one of the few details that came out during spygate was that the pats had video of the packers..and if they took the risk for a team they played that infrequently..then i'm sure they had extensive knowledge of all the afc teams signals by the second half of every game they played in..if not earlier. i'm not crazy enough to think it was a conspiracy that included the players..but it's not a scandal that i'll ever be able to sweep under the rug.

              i think colts fans should always be hungry for more but they have nothing to be disappointed about. We always have great regular seasons and have got to see our team make a record number of consecutive playoff appearances, and two superbowls with a ring. Great QBs have won fewer or as many rings. We'll compete again this year, and at LEAST as long as Peyton is around. Even when he's gone, I'm sure we'll beat the Bears

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                Originally posted by Lurkster View Post
                the colts should have gone to the SB in 1995 I believe...the game we got robbed by the Steelers/Zebras. When the NFL Network aired the show listing the most controversial calls of all time, it was amazing how many of them were in the steelers favor...and this one wasn't even on the list. We win that game in the instant replay era.

                but i can't argue that we were more often than not a doormat over those years

                I expect the colts to beat the steelers when we play them, but I can pretty well accept that there is nothing we can do immediately rise to that teams stature in the NFL historically. i think it's that seems always seem to go their way...but they've been contenders over multiple decades not just one like us. It's would be great if we had 2 SBs to their 1 during the Manning/Big Ben eras..but nobody is going to think Big Ben is better than Manning historically..and nobody is going to think the Colts are better than the Steelers in a historical big-picture perspective

                to me the pats "dynasty" is still completely tainted. they haven't been able to do anything in the playoffs since their film crew got canned. one of the few details that came out during spygate was that the pats had video of the packers..and if they took the risk for a team they played that infrequently..then i'm sure they had extensive knowledge of all the afc teams signals by the second half of every game they played in..if not earlier. i'm not crazy enough to think it was a conspiracy that included the players..but it's not a scandal that i'll ever be able to sweep under the rug.

                i think colts fans should always be hungry for more but they have nothing to be disappointed about. We always have great regular seasons and have got to see our team make a record number of consecutive playoff appearances, and two superbowls with a ring. Great QBs have won fewer or as many rings. We'll compete again this year, and at LEAST as long as Peyton is around. Even when he's gone, I'm sure we'll beat the Bears

                1995 had a sad ending but considering we weren't even supposed to be in the playoffs let alone on the doorstep of the SB it didn't bother me that much compared to 2005 where we had HFA and lost to a 6th seed team that ended up winning the SB

                Or in 2009 where we had a shot at perfection but Colts management threw it away and told the fans who wanted it they were losers for even wanting such a thing.

                People like to discredit the Pats but nobody is taking their rings away unless that happens it really doesn't matter how they got them after all they still had to execute and they did like it or not.

                I rather have a great team than a great QB as long as we get more SB's out of it.

                This team however insists on being content with being good enough and thinking its enough to get an SB never mind that the same problems that plague this team are never fixed. At least this offseason they made an attempt to fix those but really such a waste they never came to this conclusion sooner.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                  Man, what a delusional fan you are. Stick to being a fan of basketball and leave football alone. Your expectations are absurd and your definition of mediocrity is laughable.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Man, what a delusional fan you are. Stick to being a fan of basketball and leave football alone. Your expectations are absurd and your definition of mediocrity is laughable.


                    Its not delusional to expect a team with one of the greatest QB's of all time and these stellar regular seasons to have won more than one SB just because others are content with being good enough doesn't mean the rest of us are.

                    Some actually expect more

                    If the Colts were an inconsistent team from year to year it would be different but that's not how it is.

                    Deal with it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Man, what a delusional fan you are. Stick to being a fan of basketball and leave football alone. Your expectations are absurd and your definition of mediocrity is laughable.

                      Sorry, the fact that we have a 9-10 record in the postseason during Manning's career is unacceptable to many of us. A 9-10 record in the post-season? Seems like a textbook definition of mediocrity to me.......

                      We have been one and done in 3 of the 4 years since we won the Super Bowl. Granted, the year we weren't one and done we did go to the SB against New Orleans, but still, being one and done 3 out of 4 years since winning it all isn't acceptable.

                      This team has underachieved in the Manning era. It's like how Packers fans have to feel about the Favre era. They won 1 championship which was obviously special, but they have to think they should have maybe won 1 more during his career there.

                      Brady, Montana, Elway, Aikman....all those guys have multiple rings. We want Manning in that club too.

                      As time goes on, the loss to the Saints will just sting more and more. That game still makes me sick.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                        Its the playoffs. You're not playing the Detroit Lions anymore. Of course we are going to be close to .500 ball.

                        I would love to see most teams playoff record since Manning rookie year. Ill probably look that up tonight. Common sense says we won't be alone in hovering around .500.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                          Peyton has truly spoiled some of us.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                            Its the playoffs. You're not playing the Detroit Lions anymore. Of course we are going to be close to .500 ball.

                            I would love to see most teams playoff record since Manning rookie year. Ill probably look that up tonight. Common sense says we won't be alone in hovering around .500.
                            The only way you're not hovering around .500 is if you go to the Super Bowl repeatedly and miss the playoffs in off years. Take the Eagles for example, they are the epitome of "not going one and done". Andy Reid is 10-9, and that's with them losing in the NFC championship round four times and the Super Bowl once.

                            Bill Cowher, who some of the detractors in the thread want because his team plays "winning football", is 12-9 and is only over .500 because of the 4-0 record of his last playoff run.

                            Going outside Bellichick and the Pats, the other winning coaches are guys like Mike Tomlin (5-2), Sean Payton (4-2), Mike McCarthy (5-2). Those three show Super Bowl runs and missing the playoffs over a short stretch gives you a winning record.

                            So yeah the playoff record is disheartening, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The record is a product of the young team overachieving early in Peyton's career, all the run ins with the Pats, and making the playoffs just about every year.
                            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                              I'm not saying that our playoff record should be the same percentage as a 13-3 record.

                              What I am saying, is that we have a *losing* playoff record in the Manning era. 9-10 should not be acceptable to anyone. Almost half of our Manning-era playoff wins came in 2006-07 when we had to win 4 games to win the Super Bowl.

                              Big difference between say 12-10 and 9-10. All I'm saying is that there have been way too many one and dones. I'm not asking for an 80% win rate, but I would like to see one over 50%.

                              You're right cdash, Manning does spoil us. That's why we want to achieve the maximum possible in his career here. Can you look yourself in the mirror and say we really have achieved the maximum possible with one of the greatest QB's ever?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Kravitz: As usual, Colts lose in free agency but will win when it counts

                                Buffalo - 0-2
                                Miami - 3-5
                                New England - 13-4
                                Jets - 6-6

                                Baltimore - 7-5
                                Cincy - 0-1
                                Cleveland - 0-1
                                Pittsburgh - 10-4

                                Houston - 0-0
                                Jacksonville - 3-4
                                Tennessee - 6-5

                                Denver - 4-4
                                Kansas City - 0-2
                                Oakland - 4-3
                                San Diego - 3-5

                                Dallas - 0-5
                                Giants - 6-5
                                Eagles - 10-7
                                Redskins - 2-3

                                Bears - 2-3
                                Lions - 0-1
                                Green Bay - 3-6
                                Minnesota - 5-6

                                Atlanta - 4-4
                                Carolina - 5-3
                                New Orleans - 5-3
                                Tampa Bay - 3-6

                                Arizona 5-3
                                St. Louis - 6-4
                                San Fran - 2-3
                                Seattle - 4-6

                                ===============

                                This is my own count off Football Database, so I may be off a game or two on someone. And it doesn't count 2010 because their pages didn't show that yet. Who isn't around .500? New England, Pittsburgh, and partially the Eagles. Everyone else is. Yet a lot of the teams like Tenn had 6 wins, but 4 of them were in 1 year. Either way, other than New England and Pitt, I don't see anyone really beyond us.

                                If we didn't make the playoffs every year, our record would be better. Like Tenn, they're above .500 but only because they won the Super Bowl 1 year with 4 wins. Then the other years they made the playoffs they were booted quickly. Unlike most teams, we're in the playoffs every year. What a horrible problem to have.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X