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

Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

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

  • #16
    Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

    Any dislike of Bill Polian is just as irrational as a dislike of Grigson.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Any dislike of Bill Polian is just as irrational as a dislike of Grigson.
      Sure, if you don't count the 5 Super Bowls and building the Panthers from literally nothing into a contender in two years. Listen, it may sound harsh, but whatever, if someone has disdain for Polian, the football person (he's a dick personally, no one will say otherwise), I just can't take their opinion seriously.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

        He's a dick first and foremost. His accomplishments are past history. Charlotte seems impressive from the outside looking in, but Buffalo and Indy had Jim Kelly and Peyton Manning which a GM would be hard-pressed to not win with QB's like that. Give him credit for being in on the ground floor of that but also remember that was eons ago in football career terms. I think ultimately he mismanaged the Manning era and with an attitude like Polian's you better be at the top of your game every single year or you deserve to be fired at the first sign of weakness. That arrogance might've served him well early on, but it also likely fueled his decline as well since he was too stubborn to admit the game was changing around him or that he'd made mistakes that needed corrected. Just like Bobby Knight IMHO. Both need to be remembered in context of not only the historical success, but their more recent failings and slippage into mediocrity and their attitude and arrogance.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          A LOT of people could've had success with the Manning era Colts.
          You mean they would have success with Manning. Because the "Manning era Colts" were built by Polian so it's moot to say someone else would have success with them. I'm not a huge fan of the guy but I do respect what he has accomplished. He paid manning a lot and he absolutely had to make sure he had targets to through to. That kind of thing ties your hands a bit on what you can do on the other side of the ball. I think he drafted well. We got good players that we often couldn't hold on to. Some turned out to be busts but that was often because of injuries, not lack of talent. I don't expect a GM to predict the injuries of a player.

          If I owned a team and needed a gm, Polian would be high on my list.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

            http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...9209--nfl.html

            I've always wondered if there was any truth to the story that Polian wanted to trade Peyton. I believe that it possible he may have said it out of frustration, but I can't believe he really felt it would make the team better.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

              Originally posted by MnvrChvy View Post
              You mean they would have success with Manning. Because the "Manning era Colts" were built by Polian so it's moot to say someone else would have success with them. I'm not a huge fan of the guy but I do respect what he has accomplished. He paid manning a lot and he absolutely had to make sure he had targets to through to. That kind of thing ties your hands a bit on what you can do on the other side of the ball. I think he drafted well. We got good players that we often couldn't hold on to. Some turned out to be busts but that was often because of injuries, not lack of talent. I don't expect a GM to predict the injuries of a player.

              If I owned a team and needed a gm, Polian would be high on my list.
              Marvin Harrison was already on the roster (as was Marshall Faulk) and Irsay was taking Manning so it's a moot point as to who Polian would've taken if he really had an option anyway. Polian came here IMHO at least partially (if not entirely) because he knew he was stepping into a good (potentially great) situation. That's why I said comparing him to Phil Jackson might be a good comparison.

              I'm not arguing he sucked, or was never good. Only that he was an arrogant a--hole that rode on his early resume right on past his expiration date. He might never have been as good as he thought he was, but ultimately he ended up not very good at all.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

                I think he actually had 6-teams in Super Bowls. No question on my part that Polian was a great & HOF worthy GM and the Colts were fortunate to have him. I just feel his stubborn adherence in the mid to late 2000's to the same principles he used to build the Bill's in the early 90's cost the Colt's at least one more Super Bowl. Even more frustrating when you think about how those early 90's Bills teams also struggled to close the deal on championships.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

                  Polian basically started his Colts tenure with Peyton/Harrison/Glenn. Harrison and Glenn were holdovers from the Bill Tobin era. Harrison was one of the best receivers in history and Glenn protected Manning's blindside for the first 9 years of his career. Now Polian was obviously the GM when Peyton was selected, but that was an organizational decision in which Irsay had the final say.....much like with Luck 14 years later.

                  Starting your tenure with Peyton/Harrison/Glenn is a hell of a foundation. I think a lot of people could have won a ring with that. I give Polian a ton of credit for consistently finding quality talent in the draft and mostly acing his first round picks through 2006. OTOH, he was stubborn with the defense and the moves from 07 onward were pretty bad. Things immediately went downhill after we won the Super Bowl. I don't think that's a coincidence at all. When we won the Super Bowl, Polian was 65 and had accomplished everything that a GM could ever dream of. At that point, I think it's pretty clear that he started handing things over to his son....particularly the draft. Not surprisingly, things went downhill fast. I wouldn't be surprised if talks broke down with Buffalo because Polian tried to get his son involved like he was here. There is a reason that Chris Polian hasn't had a prominent GM job since leaving Indy. Most around the NFL view him as a major reason that the Colts personnel moves started going south.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-09-2015, 12:20 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

                    Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                    I think he actually had 6-teams in Super Bowls. No question on my part that Polian was a great & HOF worthy GM and the Colts were fortunate to have him. I just feel his stubborn adherence in the mid to late 2000's to the same principles he used to build the Bill's in the early 90's cost the Colt's at least one more Super Bowl. Even more frustrating when you think about how those early 90's Bills teams also struggled to close the deal on championships.
                    Buffalo fired him after the 3rd SB loss IIRC so if you are counting the 4th Buffalo SB that is probably why you are getting 6 instead of 5.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Looks like Bill Polian will return to Buffalo.

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Polian basically started his Colts tenure with Peyton/Harrison/Glenn. Harrison and Glenn were holdovers from the Bill Tobin era. Harrison was one of the best receivers in history and Glenn protected Manning's blindside for the first 9 years of his career. Now Polian was obviously the GM when Peyton was selected, but that was an organizational decision in which Irsay had the final say.....much like with Luck 14 years later.

                      Starting your tenure with Peyton/Harrison/Glenn is a hell of a foundation. I think a lot of people could have won a ring with that. I give Polian a ton of credit for consistently finding quality talent in the draft and mostly acing his first round picks through 2006. OTOH, he was stubborn with the defense and the moves from 07 onward were pretty bad. Things immediately went downhill after we lost the Super Bowl. I don't think that's a coincidence at all. When we won the Super Bowl, Polian was 65 and had accomplished everything that a GM could ever dream of. At that point, I think it's pretty clear that he started handing things over to his son....particularly the draft. Not surprisingly, things went downhill fast. I wouldn't be surprised if talks broke down with Buffalo because Polian tried to get his son involved like he was here. There is a reason that Chris Polian hasn't had a prominent GM job since leaving Indy. Most around the NFL view him as a major reason that the Colts personnel moves started going south.
                      This is how I feel about Bill Polian. The guy had a great run up to 2006, but at the same time he had a great foundation pretty much already poured for him when he got here. Having Glenn, Manning and Harrison on your offense to basically start your tenure is pretty much the perfect way to start. You got to give the credit because he was able to do a great job finding talent, but his view on building the team specifically around Peyton was flawed and ultimately doomed this team. We were lucky that Peyton was an iron man for the most part because this team was crippled without Peyton because everything from the passing game to the defense was built around Peyton.

                      Once he brought in Chris Polian though everything was down hill because the guy just was not a quality GM in this league and only got there because of who his dad was. Ultimately, I think Peyton will be known for who was responsible for the success of this team more so than Polian.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X