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

2014 Non-Colts Thread

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

  • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

    Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
    Quick question: Why is it the 3rd year running that Broncos visit the Pats?
    Couldn't tell you why the game has been in NE the past three years, but they play each other because of them being the division winners the past three years. Remember how we would always play at NE during the Peyton years until 2007 where we got them at home from 07-09
    Smothered Chicken!

    Comment


    • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

      Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
      Couldn't tell you why the game has been in NE the past three years, but they play each other because of them being the division winners the past three years. Remember how we would always play at NE during the Peyton years until 2007 where we got them at home from 07-09
      Yeah I get that but strikes me a bit weird this year is not at Denver
      Never forget

      Comment


      • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

        There's a precise formula that sets all of the home vs. away matchups, but I don't remember it exactly.

        There are three different types of rotations.

        1) Every three years you play all of the teams in another AFC division, call this the division round robin, and the home/away switches from what it was three years ago.

        This year NE plays all of the AFC West, including Denver, in the division round robin. They host Denver this time, since Denver hosted them in 2011, the last time the two divisions played each other top-to-bottom.

        2014, 2011, 2008, etc. -AFCE vs. ACFCW
        2013, 2010, 2007, etc. -AFCE vs. AFCC
        2012, 2009, 2006, etc. -AFCE vs. AFCS

        That every three year rotation is, I think, precisely home/away/home/etc.

        2) Same way, there is a 4 year rotation vs. an entire NFC division, and it is precisely home/away/home/etc.

        3) Then in addition, every year you play the team in each of the other two divisions that finished the year in the same position as you did in the previous year but that is NOT in your round-robin division, call these the position matchups. But the exactly team is going to be different, unless two teams always have the same dominant position in the division. I am not entirely sure how this rotation is set up. Since, for example, the Pats were at the Texans last year for the AFCE/AFCS position matchup, but they are at the Colts this year for the AFCE/AFCS position matchup. It might rely on the outcome of the other three rotations, adjusted so that of course everyone has 8 home and 8 road games.

        I was told there would be no math.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-29-2014, 11:02 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


        • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          Since 2006: 7, 4, 4, 1, 3, 10, 3,and 10 point margins,
          (Pats wins bolded)
          Games were too close to say that anyone figured anybody out, even lately.
          By "figured out", I don't mean that Peyton mastered the Pats....clearly that's impossible. I just mean that he figured out how to consistently put his team in a position to win games against them.......a vast improvement over getting destroyed by them as he did many times in the first six match-ups against Brady. Since the 05 regular season, Peyton is 5-4 against them. Of the four losses, the ten point loss in 2012 as a Bronco was the only decisive one.

          Comment


          • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            Oh whatever, lol... just because one team has won more doesn't not make it a rivalry. Really the Pats dominated the first 6 games of the rivalry, Manning has held his own ever since, and I'd argue that Manning has come out on top in the last few *big* games.... last year's AFC championship... 2006 AFC championship game...
            Rivalries well ones that matter usually have a back and forth thing going that's what makes it a rivalry. It wasn't until the 2006 AFC title game did the rivalry actually become one.

            I just am responding more to people I know anyways saying this is more significant than Bird vs Magic and yeah its not. To NFL pundits I'm sure but Bird and Magic was a part of pop culture and went beyond basketball. I don't think this one is nearly as compelling. Although you could argue that was one sided as well with Magic usually being on the winning end.

            Comment


            • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              Rivalries well ones that matter usually have a back and forth thing going that's what makes it a rivalry. It wasn't until the 2006 AFC title game did the rivalry actually become one.

              I just am responding more to people I know anyways saying this is more significant than Bird vs Magic and yeah its not. To NFL pundits I'm sure but Bird and Magic was a part of pop culture and went beyond basketball. I don't think this one is nearly as compelling. Although you could argue that was one sided as well with Magic usually being on the winning end.
              I don't think most people will agree with you that it isn't much of a rivalry. You still seem to think a rivalry can only be two teams who have equal wins against each other, which is not true.

              And I don't recall a single person saying it was a bigger rivalry than Bird vs Magic. But it's easily one of the best NFL rivalries of the past two decades. Not sure where you've been.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                So Mark Barron traded for a 4th and a 6th rd draft pick, If I were the Colts I would have had to consider this trade... I still like his potential, wonder what happened in TB, maybe a change of scenery would help him out.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  Rivalries well ones that matter usually have a back and forth thing going that's what makes it a rivalry. It wasn't until the 2006 AFC title game did the rivalry actually become one.
                  Since 2005, this rivalry has been pretty even. Manning has won two straight playoff games against the Pats and is a career 2-1 against them in the AFCCG. All of the playoff games have been won by the home team: 03 and 04 Pats, 06 Colts and 13 Broncos.

                  Obviously the totals from 2001 to today will always be in favor of Brady since he started out 6-0 against Peyton. The Pats are too good for Peyton to ever make that up. But since Peyton picked up that first win against them 9 years ago, it's been very very even. At one point, Peyton had three straight victories against them (05 and 06 regular season in Foxboro, AFCCG in Dome).

                  We're talking 13 years of a rivalry with the last 9 of those being very balanced. It's a big deal and is a unique rivalry.

                  These two quarterbacks are great EVERY YEAR. They make the playoffs and virtually always win at least 12 games. Both have lost a season to injury, but age hasn't prevented them from still being fantastic. When these two leave, there isn't going to be another QB rivalry that matches it.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-30-2014, 12:04 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                    Originally posted by Really? View Post
                    So Mark Barron traded for a 4th and a 6th rd draft pick, If I were the Colts I would have had to consider this trade... I still like his potential, wonder what happened in TB, maybe a change of scenery would help him out.
                    Much better playing as an in the box safety or covering tight ends than as a safety covering large zones down field.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Since 2005, this rivalry has been pretty even. Manning has won two straight playoff games against the Pats and is a career 2-1 against them in the AFCCG. All of the playoff games have been won by the home team: 03 and 04 Pats, 06 Colts and 13 Broncos.

                      Obviously the totals from 2001 to today will always be in favor of Brady since he started out 6-0 against Peyton. The Pats are too good for Peyton to ever make that up. But since Peyton picked up that first win against them 9 years ago, it's been very very even. At one point, Peyton had three straight victories against them (05 and 06 regular season in Foxboro, AFCCG in Dome).

                      We're talking 13 years of a rivalry with the last 9 of those being very balanced. It's a big deal and is a unique rivalry.

                      These two quarterbacks are great EVERY YEAR. They make the playoffs and virtually always win at least 12 games. Both have lost a season to injury, but age hasn't prevented them from still being fantastic. When these two leave, there isn't going to be another QB rivalry that matches it.

                      Sure you can say that now but I'm sure when Bradshaw/Staubach were around many didn't think that there would be two QBs who go against each other on a regular basis it in future years. However that was more team oriented rather than "star oriented" like today's NFL is with QBs so people focus on the Brady/Manning aspect and less on the actual teams involved(probably because Manning is no longer a Colt)

                      I just don't put it on par with individual sports rivalries because it involves a team.

                      Brady and Manning deal with one side of the ball.

                      At least with Bird/Magic they had to play offense and defense so it was somewhat on part with individual rivalries.
                      Last edited by Basketball Fan; 10-30-2014, 05:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                        Okay? Seriously, what a derail. Just because it's not like an NBA rivalry doesn't not make it a rivalry. Magic and Bird were great, but they had some greats around them, too, and they played on "teams" There are many out there who would argue that the reasons you state it's not as big a deal is actually the opposite of their thinking.

                        It's all neither here or there. It's Manning vs. Brady, it's a rivalry, and it's happening again here in a few days. It's good stuff for most folks. If you're not on board with it, by all means don't feel compelled to come here and rain on parades or whatever it is you're doing.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-30-2014, 11:41 PM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          Sure you can say that now but I'm sure when Bradshaw/Staubach were around many didn't think that there would be two QBs who go against each other on a regular basis it in future years. However that was more team oriented rather than "star oriented" like today's NFL is with QBs so people focus on the Brady/Manning aspect and less on the actual teams involved(probably because Manning is no longer a Colt)

                          I just don't put it on par with individual sports rivalries because it involves a team.

                          Brady and Manning deal with one side of the ball.

                          At least with Bird/Magic they had to play offense and defense so it was somewhat on part with individual rivalries.
                          If you have to go back to the 1970's to Bradshaw and Staubach, then you're kind of proving my point. These sort of iconic rivalries don't happen much. Also, Bradshaw and Staubach only played each other a handful of times since they were in different conferences. Manning and Brady OTOH play every season since they always win their respective divisions.

                          Aikman - Young was a good rivalry, but it's not Manning - Brady. Manning - Brady is in a class of its own. Most people would say that these are 2 of the 5 or so best quarterbacks of all time. Their battles have produced some extremely memorable games. When Brady and Manning hang it up for good, there isn't going to be some new QB rivalry that just magically takes its place. Sure there will be rivalries down the line, but this one is in a league of its own. 7 MVPs, 8 Super Bowl appearances, 4 rings, 4 playoff matchups against each other, 3 AFCCG match-ups against each other, each have stats out the whazzo, each are still masters of the position at an old age, the accomplishments go on and on and have occurred simultaneously.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-30-2014, 11:47 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                            Mike and Mike was like hours of free advertisement for the Patriots this morning. They did the show from Gillette. Greenberg was dressed up like Brady - authentic jersey, beanie, gloves.....which they reminded you multiple times was given to them by the Pats. Golic was dressed up as Belichick with the hoodie. They actually had Belichick and Kraft on the show and reminded us multiple times how great Robert Kraft has been for humanity in general, which I think is required of any media coverage of the Pats. At first I thought my ESPN had been hijacked by a local Boston station. The Patriot oozing and sucking up was just too much. I've never seen that sort of gushing by them for any other sports team.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                              a guy going to jail is never funny, but the video of Joseph Randle getting booked is hilarious. "you think this will become a suspension? Dez didn't miss no games for smackin his mom!"

                              http://www.myfoxdfw.com/Clip/1079547...Eg7Xog.twitter

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2014 Non-Colts Thread

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Mike and Mike was like hours of free advertisement for the Patriots this morning. They did the show from Gillette. Greenberg was dressed up like Brady - authentic jersey, beanie, gloves.....which they reminded you multiple times was given to them by the Pats. Golic was dressed up as Belichick with the hoodie. They actually had Belichick and Kraft on the show and reminded us multiple times how great Robert Kraft has been for humanity in general, which I think is required of any media coverage of the Pats. At first I thought my ESPN had been hijacked by a local Boston station. The Patriot oozing and sucking up was just too much. I've never seen that sort of gushing by them for any other sports team.

                                Bristol CT= Pats country

                                I don't get why this surprises anyone.

                                However the Pats aren't the only team ESPN covets there's the Cowboys, any team LeBron is on,

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X